FOURTH BIENNIAL

UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
CONHEÇA CONHEÇA
NOSSAS REDES mctic
NOSSAS REDES mctic
@mctic @mctic
@mctic.gov.br
@mctic.gov.br
CONHEÇA NOSSAS REDES mctic @mctic @mctic.gov.br

CONHEÇA
CONHEÇA
NOSSAS
NOSSAS
REDES
REDES
ItamaratyGovBr
WE ItamaratyGovBr
ARE ALSOCONHEÇA
mctic
mctic AT
@mctic @mctic
@ItamaratyGovBr
NOSSAS
@mctic REDES /mctic
/MREBRASIL
@ItamaratyGovBr
@mctic.gov.br
@mctic.gov.br mctic
mctic /MREBRASIL
CONHEÇA NOSSAS REDES
@mctic
ItamaratyGovBr
@mctic @ItamaratyGovBr
@mctic.gov.br
mctic @mctic
/MREBRASIL
@mctic.gov.br

ItamaratyGovBr @ItamaratyGovBr /MREBRASIL

CONHEÇA CONHEÇA
NOSSAS REDES
NOSSAS REDES ItamaratyGovBr
ItamaratyGovBr @ItamaratyGovBr
@ItamaratyGovBr
CONHEÇA NOSSAS CONHEÇA /MREBRASIL
REDES /MREBRASIL
@ItamaratyGovBr /MREBRASIL
NOSSAS REDES ItamaratyGovBr
ItamaratyGovBr
mctic @mctic @itamaratygovbr
@ItamaratyGovBr
@mctic.gov.br /MREBRASIL

CONHEÇA NOSSAS REDES ItamaratyGovBr @ItamaratyGovBr /MREBRASIL

CONHEÇA
CONHEÇA
NOSSAS
NOSSAS
REDES
REDES CONHEÇA NOSSAS REDES

CONHEÇA NOSSAS REDES

mctic mctic
@mctic @mctic
@mctic.gov.br
@mctic.gov.br mctic @mctic @mctic.gov.br

mctic @mctic @mctic.gov.br

mctic
mctic @mctic
@mctic @mctic.gov.br
@mctic.gov.br mctic @mctic @mctic.gov.br

mctic @mctic @mctic.gov.br

MINISTRY OF
MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY
Empowered lives.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INNOVATIONS
Resilient nations.

MINISTÉRIO DA
MINISTÉRIO DAS CIÊNCIA, TECNOLOGIA,
RELAÇÕES EXTERIORES INOVAÇÕES E COMUNICAÇÕES
 Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovations

FOURTH BIENNIAL
UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL
TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Brazil
2020
FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Secretariat for Sovereignty and Citizenship Affairs
Department for the Environment
Department of Natural Sciences
Environment Division II - National Focal Point to the UNFCCC

MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATIONS

Secretariat for Research and Scientific Training
General Coordination on Climate Science and Sustainability

CONTRIBUTORS TO THE FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT

Ministry of Foreign Affairs – MRE
Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovations – MCTI
Ministry of the Environment – MMA
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply – MAPA
Ministry of Mines and Energy – MME
Ministry of the Economy – ME
Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation – Embrapa
Brazilian Cooperation Agency – ABC
SUMMARY

1 National circumstances and institutional arrangements 7

1.1 National circumstances 7
1.2 Institutional arrangements 11

2 National inventory of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removal by sinks of

greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol 13

2.1 Methodology 15
2.2 Uncertainty analysis 16
2.3 Emissions results 43

3 Mitigation actions and their effects 49

3.1 Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects in Brazil: an update 68

4 Constraints and gaps, and related financial, technical and capacity needs;
Information on support received 71
4.1 Constraints and gaps, and related financial, technical and capacity needs 71
4.2 Information on support received 75

5 Funds received for the preparation of the BUR 85

6 Information on the description of domestic MRV (measurement, reporting and
verification) arrangements 87

6.1 Modular System for Monitoring Actions of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions –
SMMARE and MRV of actions 87
6.1.1 Actions in Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry 88
6.1.2 Steel industry (charcoal) 89
6.1.3 SIGABC Agriculture and ABC Platform 90
6.2 National Emissions Registry System - SIRENE 91

APPENDIX I: Historical series of greenhouse gas emissions 92

APPENDIX II: Methodological summary table applied to the national inventory 100

3
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE I Institutional arrangements for the preparation of national inventories 14
FIGURE II Greenhouse gas emissions in CO2 equivalent (GWP-SAR), by sector, from
1990 to 2016 43
FIGURE III Evolution and sectoral participation in net CO2 equivalent emissions
in 2016, by various metrics (GWP-SAR, GWP-AR5 and GTP-AR5) 45
FIGURE IV Annual distribution of Brazilian project activities registered with
the CDM Executive Board (Nov 2004-Dec 2019) 68
FIGURE V Main systems for monitoring and implementation of actions in
the LULUCF sector 88

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE I Relevant information about Brazil 9
TABLE II Socioeconomic indicators in Brazil 9
TABLE III Main elements of the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC) 10
TABLE IV Uncertainties associated with CO2 emissions in 2016 17
TABLE V Uncertainties associated with CH4 emissions in 2016 17
TABLE VI Uncertainties associated with N2O emissions in 2016 18
TABLE VII Uncertainties associated with emissions by gas, and uncertainties
from the total result in 2016 18
TABLE VIII Greenhouse gas emissions by sources for the year 1994, in gigagram (Gg) 19
TABLE IX Greenhouse gas emissions by sources for the year 2000, in gigagram (Gg) 23
TABLE X Greenhouse gas emissions by sources for the year 2010, in gigagram (Gg) 27
TABLE XI Greenhouse gas emissions by sources for the year 2012, in gigagram (Gg) 31
TABLE XII Greenhouse gas emissions by sources for the year 2015, in gigagram (Gg) 35
TABLE XIII Greenhouse gas emissions by sources for the year 2016, in gigagram (Gg) 39
TABLE XIV Anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse
gases into CO2e, converted using the GTP and GWP metrics, by sector 46
TABLE XV Reference approach vs. Sectoral approach in the Energy sector 47
TABLE XVI Mitigation actions 51
TABLE XVII Distribution of CDM project activities in Brazil per type of project activity,
registered by December 2019 69
TABLE XVIII Constraints and gaps, and related financial, technical and capacity needs 71
TABLE XIX Support received by multilateral channels in 2018 77
TABLE XX Support received by bilateral channels in 2018 79
TABLE XXI Support received by multilateral channels in 2019 80
TABLE XXII Support received by bilateral channels in 2019 83

LIST OF BOXES
BOX I National GHG emissions in CO2 equivalent 44
BOX II Reference approach vs. Sectoral approach – Energy sector 47
BOX III Additional efforts 49
1
NATIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES
AND INSTITUTIONAL
ARRANGEMENTS
1 NATIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND INSTITUTIONAL
ARRANGEMENTS

1.1 NATIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Country Profile

Brazil is a developing country endowed with extensive land and sea areas. With a population
of approximately 212 million inhabitants and a territory of 8,510,295.914 km2, the country has
undergone intense urbanization over the past 50 years and 84% of its population currently lives in
urban areas.

Population and urban growth brought the challenge of striking a balance between economic
development, environmental conservation, and social inclusion. To this end, Brazil has been making
efforts on the sustainability front, and, thanks to investments in research and innovation, has
succeeded in expanding its industrial and agricultural production while preserving the environment
and fighting poverty, which are pillars of sustainable development. Investments in agricultural
production helped Brazil move from a food importing country suffering from severe food insecurity
in the 1970s to the second largest food exporter in the world, a major guarantor of food security at
the global level.

Brazil has set a global benchmark in sustainable agriculture by establishing a holistic approach to
the landscape, adopting sustainable practices in lands that are suitable for farming, and encouraging
the environmental regularization of rural properties. The Brazilian Forest Code is one of the most
advanced pieces of environmental legislation in the world. The law establishes that at least 80% of
the area of ​​rural properties in the Amazon must be allocated to conservation and sustainable use of
natural resources, meaning that rural producers are allowed to use a maximum of 20% of the land in
their properties. In the Cerrado, this percentage is 35% and 20% in the remaining biomes.

The Brazilian agricultural sector accounted for approximately 21% of the country’s total GDP
in 2018, with exports reaching a nominal record of US$101.7 billion, an increase of 5.9% compared
to 2017 (Cepea1, 2018), of a total value of the national agricultural production of 343.5 billion BRL, an
increase of 8.3% compared to 2017. This corresponds to 227.5 million tons of grains (cereals, pulses
and oilseeds), in addition to other agricultural commodities (IBGE 20182).

In addition to its relevance in the GDP, according to Cepea, this sector is fundamental for the
balance of trade – it accounts for more than 40% of total exports. The sector accounts for 20% of all
existing jobs in Brazil, i.e., 18.2 million workers. It should be pointed out that 45% of workers in this
sector work in primary production. According to the Agricultural Census, there are five million Brazilian
families involved in the production of food, fiber and power. This clearly reflects the importance of
sustainability in its three pillars – environmental, economic and social.

1
Cepea, 2018. Centro de Estudos Avançados em Economia Aplicada da ESALQ/USP. Available in:<https://www.cepea.esalq.usp.br>. Accessed
on: 12 December 2018.
2
IBGE, 2018. Produção Agrícola Municipal - PAM1, referentes ao ano civil de 2018. Available in: <https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/
periodicos/66/pam_2018_v45_br_informativo.pdf> and <https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas-novoportal/economicas/agricultura-e-
pecuaria/9117-producao-agricola-municipal-culturas-temporarias-e-permanentes.html>

NATIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

7
 By fostering research and technological development for a sustainable tropical agriculture,
the Country’s strategies have boosted yields per hectare on a par with economic and demographic
growth. Adoption of these technologies by rural producers has allowed a steadier supply of food
throughout the year, thus ensuring more stable prices for consumers, in addition to higher quality
food. In a world of increasing climate uncertainty, Brazil is implementing strategies to ensure national
and global food security.

With low greenhouse gas emissions levels, the diversified Brazilian industrial sector also follows
sustainable principles, with an increasing share of renewable energies in its energy mix. In 2019,
more than half (58%) of the energy consumed in the industrial sector came from renewable sources.

Brazil has the cleanest energy mix and electricity mix among the largest global consumers. The
Domestic Energy Supply (OIE for its acronym in Portuguese) in 2019 was 294 million toe (tons of oil
equivalent), slightly higher than in 2018, which was 288.4 million toe. A breakdown of the energy mix
for 2018 and 2019 shows a significant increase in the renewable sources share, from 45.5% in 2018
to 46.1% in 2019. This accounts for a 2.8% increase in the supply from renewable sources compared
to the previous year, compared to a 0.3% increase in non-renewable sources during the same period.

Brazil’s share of renewables in its energy mix is currently 4.3 times larger than the average in
OECD countries and 3.3 times larger than the average for the rest of the world. A study conducted by
the International Energy Agency3 revealed that Brazil would reach 44.3% of renewable energies in its
energy mix by 2023, but the country exceeded that share as early as in 2018.

Regarding the generation of electric energy, in 2018-2019 wind energy supply increased by
15.5% and hydro generation rose by 2.3%. Photovoltaic solar generation deserves special notice,
since it reported a significant increase of 92% in this period. Therefore, the country’s electricity mix
remains primarily based on renewable sources, with the prospect of increasing its share over the next
few years given the growing competitiveness of wind and solar sources. Brazil has a share of 83% of
renewable sources in its electricity mix, i.e., 2.9 times larger than the average in OECD countries and
almost 3.1 times larger than the average for the rest of the world.

As far as bioenergy is concerned, the total supply in 2019 was 93.9 Mtoe, which accounts for
31.9% of the Brazilian energy mix and represents an increase compared to 2018, which was 31.4%.
In the transportation sector, a highlight is the increased share of ethanol in the light vehicle segment.
In 2019, ethanol production was 35.2 million m³, up 5.6% over 2018. Biodiesel production in 2019
increased by 10.7% over 2018, thus confirming the growth trend of previous years.

The country has also made progress in national development priorities. There is an incremental
improvement in indicators related to access to health, basic sanitation, fighting hunger, poverty, and
income inequality. Its improvement is also due to better living conditions and household income as
a result of effective social programs. In order to make this a sustained improvement, however, the
government is working towards bolstering the production sector and, as a result, creating more jobs
and boosting living standards, such as an emphasis on improving urban environmental conditions,
with an increase in basic sanitation and proper treatment of solid waste.

3
https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2018

8 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

TABLE I: RELEVANT INFORMATION ABOUT BRAZIL4

Standard Characteristic

Total area of 8,510,295.914 km ; divided into five political-administrative regions – North, Northeast,
2
Territory
Midwest, South and Southeast; composed of 26 states and the Federal District.
Population 211.9 million people.
Five climatic regions: Equatorial (North), Tropical (most of the territory), Semi-arid (Northeast),
Climate
Tropical of Altitude (Southeast), and Subtropical (South).
Six biomes5: Amazon (49.5%), Cerrado (23.3%), Atlantic Forest (13%), Caatinga (10.1%), Pantanal
Biodiversity
Wetlands (1.8%), and Pampa (2.3%).
Native
The country has 84% of
​​ the Amazon and 60% of the territory preserved.
vegetation cover
Protected areas account for 30.68% of the territory, including Conservation Units (18.1%) and
Indigenous Lands (12.48%), in addition to Conservation Units in marine areas (26.62%). The country
Protected Areas
has over 2,000 terrestrial conservation units, which corresponds to nearly 18% of the Brazilian
territory.
The country has approximately 12% of the world’s surface fresh water. Twelve river basins provide
Water resources abundant water resources; however, they are unevenly distributed throughout the territory. Currently, the
primary use of water in the country is irrigation (in terms of utilized volumes), with more than 900 m3/s.
The percentage of renewable sources in the Brazilian Energy Mix in 2019 was 46.1%, a significantly
higher share than the average in OECD countries (10.8%) and the world (14.2%). In the electricity mix,
Energy mix
renewable sources accounted for 83% of energy sources for electricity generation in 2019, with the
average of OECD countries in 2019 at 28.5% and the world average at 26.7%.

TABLE II: SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATORS IN BRAZIL

Socioeconomic indicators6 2000 2010 2013 2015 2016 2017 2018

GDP (in billions of BRL, current values) 1,199 3,886 5,332 5,996 6,267 6,554 6,828
GDP (in billions of USD, constant values
1,993 2,861 3,123 3,028 2,928 2,959 2,992
from 2011)
GDP per capita (in thousands of BRL,
6,860 19,855 26,521 29,323 30,399 31,534 32,595
current values)
GDP per capita (USD, constant values from
11,403 14,620 15,536 14,807 14,200 14,236 14,283
2011)
Human Development Index (HDI) 0.684 0.726 0.752 0.755 0.757 0.760 0.761
Gini Index (World Bank estimate) 59 (1)
53.7 (1)
52.8 51.9 53.3 53.3 53.9
Life expectancy at birth (years) [SDG 3] 70.1 73.6 74.5 75.0 75.2 75.5 75.7
Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 births)
30.4 16.7 14.9 14 14.6 13.2 12.8
[SDG 3.2]
Percentage of the population living on less
13.4(1) 5.4(1) 3.1 3.2 3.9 4.4 4.4
than US$1.9 per day (PPP7 2011)

(1)
Data unavailable for the year; last year data repeated.

4
Data from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. Available from the portal < www.ibge.gov.br>. Accessed on: 15 May 2020.
5
A Biome is defined as life (plant and animal life) comprised of clusters of contiguous and identifiable types of vegetation on a regional scale,
with similar geoclimatic conditions and a shared history of changes, resulting in unique biological diversity. (IBGE, 2004). Biome distribution data
available in: https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/livros/liv101676.pdf
6
World Bank, 2020. World Bank Open Data. Available in: <https://data.worldbank.org/>. Accessed on: 15 May 2020.
7
PPP – Purchasing Power Parity. Value outlined according to an assessment of the ideal cutoff line to capture the country’s poverty in relation to
the rest of the world, but also controlling for its level of development.

NATIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS 9

 Policy Dimensions

The Brazilian Government has developed a set of regulatory frameworks and management
instruments aimed at implementing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) in the country. These instruments remain in force, and some have been improved since
BUR3 was released.

The first such instrument is the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC for its acronym
in Portuguese), enacted through Law No. 12,187, of December 29, 20098, which established the
legal framework for fighting climate change in Brazil until 2020. It formalized a voluntary national
commitment for Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) presented at the Copenhagen
Conference (COP-15). NAMAs and PNMC actions have been the main focus of BUR publications so
far. Their main features and components can be found in Table III. Decree No. 10,1459 , of November
2019, established the new climate governance framework, and provides for the Interministerial
Committee on Climate Change, which improves the government’s coordination of climate affairs.

TABLE III: MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE NATIONAL POLICY ON CLIMATE CHANGE (PNMC)

Legal
Law No. 12,187/2009.
Framework

To promote sustainable development while protecting the climate system; to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions from different sources, as well as to strengthen removals of these gases by sinks; to
implement measures to adapt to climate change; to preserve, conserve and recover natural resources;
Goals to consolidate and expand legally protected areas; and to foster the development of a Brazilian
Emissions Reduction Market. The objectives of the National Policy on Climate Change must be in
line with sustainable development in order to pursue economic growth, eradication of poverty, and
reduction of social inequalities.

National
Expected reduction of greenhouse gas emissions ranging from 36.1% to 38.9% expected for 2020 (BAU
Voluntary
- Business As Usual).
Commitment

Instruments under the PNMC include the National Plan on Climate Change; the National Fund on
Climate Change; the Action Plans for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation – Amazon, Cerrado;
Plans for Mitigation and Adaptation in Agriculture, Energy, and Charcoal, as well as Brazil’s National
Instruments Communication to the UNFCCC. Policy instruments also include, but are not limited to, resolutions of
the Interministerial Committee on Climate Change (CIM), fiscal and tax measures, credit and financing
facilities, research programs by development agencies, and financial and economic measures related
to mitigation and adaptation to climate change.
Decree No. 7,390/2010, which sets forth the expected emissions for 2020, and the National Voluntary
Regulation
Sector-Specific Commitment - revoked by Decree No. 9,578/2018.
The institutional instruments, within the governmental scope, are the Interministerial Committee
on Climate Change (CIM for its acronym in Portuguese) and the Commission for the Coordination of
Meteorology, Climatology and Hydrology Activities (CMCH for its acronym in Portuguese). The current
governance of the CIM is provided for by Decree No. 10,145, of November 28, 2019, which establishes,
among others, its jurisdiction and composition. The CIM functions on a standing basis and is intended
Governance to establish guidelines, design and coordinate public actions and climate change policies. The CIM’s
and deliberative body – the Board of Ministers – is comprised of 9 Ministers of State: I - Chief of Staff of the
institutional Presidency of the Republic, who will act as the chair of the Committee; II - Minister of Foreign Affairs;
arrangements III - Minister of the Economy; IV - Minister of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply; V - Minister of
Regional Development; VI - Minister of Mines and Energy; VII - Minister of Science, Technology and
Innovations; VIII - Minister of the Environment; and IX - Minister of Infrastructure.
At the civil society level, the Brazilian Forum on Climate Change (FBMC) and the Brazilian Research
Network on Global Climate Change (Rede CLIMA) are also institutional instruments to assist in the
implementation of the Convention.

8
Source: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2007-2010/2009/Lei/L12187.htm
9
Available in: <http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2019/decreto/D10145.htm >

10 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

 As the implementation of NAMAs is still ongoing, it should be noted that in September 2016 the
country deposited the instrument of ratification of the Paris Agreement, in addition to ratifying the
Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol in December 2017. BUR3 provides details on the Nationally
Determined Contribution (NDC)10 which was submitted to the UNFCCC on September 21, 2016.

1.2 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

To prepare the National Communications of Brazil (NC) on a permanent basis, the General
Coordination of Climate Science and Sustainability (CGCL) of the Ministry of Science, Technology and
Innovations (MCTI) coordinates the project, whose main objective is to assist the Brazilian Government
to develop transparency reports to the UNFCCC. Therefore, the CGCL is responsible for preparing Brazil’s
National Communications.

National Communication projects were funded through international resources from the Global
Environment Facility (GEF), and are supported by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) through
its role as implementing agency, and rely on the endorsement of the Brazilian Cooperation Agency (ABC).

The NC brings together the inputs of hundreds of national experts from numerous public and private
institutions, such as universities, research institutes and bodies, businesses and trade associations that
contribute with data directly and perform analyzes. In addition to these, other institutions were indirectly
involved – they provided official national data on public platforms. Above all, there is relevant academic
engagement from the Brazilian Research Network on Global Climate Change (Rede CLIMA), in collaboration
with other researchers who are members of various research groups, with which institutional partnerships
are established in order to upgrade and/or improve relevant methodologies, in particular the National GHG
Inventory. Advances in the submission and breakdown of information within the scope of the NC have been
planned, with a view to incorporating the best available science on an ongoing basis and updating data that
will show the sustainability features and the low carbon history of the Brazilian production sector.

The quality assurance and quality control plan (QA/QC) of the National GHG Inventory is established
in the initial planning stage of the NC’s activities. The project’s team of experts performs quality control
(QC) of the methodological approach. Quality assurance (QA) includes a public consultation process that
is open to anyone, as well as experts not directly involved in the efforts in order to collect insights to
improve the results achieved.

In addition, with the mission of helping establish an interface between the Brazilian Government
and the UNFCCC, the Environment Division II of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MRE) acts as a National
Focal Point, so it is responsible for the official submission of National Communications to the Climate
Convention. Additionally, the MRE is responsible for the interministerial coordination of the BURs
with the support of a task-force that includes members from the Ministry of Science, Technology and
Innovations (MCTI); Ministry of the Environment (MMA); Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food
Supply (MAPA); Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME), and Ministry of the Economy (ME); as well as the
Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) and the Brazilian Cooperation Agency (ABC).
These institutions work on developing the document, including the provision of updated information in
order to comply with the transparency requirements in the BUR pursuant to national capacities.

Since the submission of the first Biennial Update Report to the UNFCCC in December 2014, Brazil
has submitted technical annexes on REDD+, which reflect the level of forest emission reductions from
deforestation. Such technical submissions regarding Decision 14/CP.19 are prepared by the MMA, which
acts as a focal point for REDD+ with the UNFCCC.

10
Available in: <https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NDCStaging/pages/Party.aspx?party=BRA>. Accessed on: 15 May 2020.

NATIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS 11

2
NATIONAL INVENTORY
OF ANTHROPOGENIC
EMISSIONS BY SOURCES
AND REMOVAL BY SINKS
OF GREENHOUSE GASES
NOT CONTROLLED BY THE
MONTREAL PROTOCOL
2 NATIONAL INVENTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC
EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVAL
BY SINKS OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOT
CONTROLLED BY THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

General Aspects

This section presents the historical time series of emissions of the National Inventory of
Anthropogenic Emissions by Sources and Removals by Sinks of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) not
Controlled by the Montreal Protocol in this BUR, from 1990 to 2016.

This inventory is organized according to the structure suggested by the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and covers the following sectors: Energy; Industrial Processes;
Agriculture; Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF); and Waste. GHG removals occur
in the LULUCF sector as a result of reforestation, growth of secondary vegetation, and protection of
natural vegetation, which continue to incorporate carbon in its biomass.

Institutional Arrangements

Preparation of the National GHG Inventory involved significant participation of the Brazilian
scientific and business communities, in addition to various government agencies. The Ministry of
Science, Technology and Innovations (MCTI) coordinates the preparation of the National Inventory,
and is responsible for convening different working groups that help survey sectoral information and
to conduct studies to obtain country-specific emission factors (Figure I). The MCTI establishes formal
partnerships with various institutions, and also seeks to engage government agencies responsible
for official statistics and data. After establishing these partnerships, the technical team in charge of
preparing the inventory conducts technical discussions with the partners, monitors the updating and
availability of required information, and carries out quality control.

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVAL BY

SINKS OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOT CONTROLLED BY THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL
13
 MINISTRY OF
MCTIC MINISTRY OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY
AND INNOVATIONS
Other partner institutions*
CGCL
MINISTÉRIO DA
MINISTÉRIO DAS CIÊNCIA, TECNOLOGIA,
RELAÇÕES EXTERIORES INOVAÇÕES E COMUNICAÇÕES

Rede Inventory’s
4CN Project Project’s Technical
CLIMA
Technical and Scientific
Coordination Coordination

National GHG Inventory

Supervision

Sectorial coordination

Sectoral Inventory Analyst Team –

Energy, Industrial Processes, Waste Treatment, LULUCF Agropec
Agriculture, and Land Use, Land-Use Change and Energy Waste
(UnB and (IFAL and
Forestry (LULUCF) sectors (UFRJ) (Embrapa)
UFPE) Embrapa)

* Other institutions involved in the preparation of the Inventory

Figure I: Institutional arrangements for the preparation of national inventories.

The Brazilian Research Network on Global Climate Change (Rede CLIMA), established by the
MCTI had a significant participation in the academic and research contribution to update activity data,
parameters and emission factors in the National Inventory. Rede CLIMA contributes by presenting
the best available science in support of sectoral studies through experts from different thematic
sub-networks from universities and research bodies such as: the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro,
which coordinates the updating of data and parameters for the Energy sector; the University of
Brasilia for the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry sector; the Federal Institute of Alagoas, for
the Agriculture sector; and the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation and its several research
units, which contribute to the Agriculture and Waste Treatment sectors; among other universities
and partner institutions that support updating, publishing and validation of sectoral information.

14 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

 Quality Control and Quality Assurance

To comply with the good practices requirements for quality control (QC) recommended by the
IPCC, the methodology, activity data, parameters, emission factors, and calculations were reviewed
by the project team. To this end, validation procedures and activities were established as per the
progress of activities until sectoral reference reports were prepared.

The quality assurance (QA) process first consisted of making reports available for public
consultation to experts not directly involved in the preparation of the National GHG Inventory. In
addition, sectoral reference reports and spreadsheets were made available, including an update
of the 2011-2016 historical time series for technical validation by experts in the individual sectors.
The resulting comments, suggestions, recommendations, and remarks were captured, replied and
incorporated, when relevant.

Archiving and Disclosure

Brazil’s national inventories are organized and archived as a set of spreadsheets, in addition
to metadata used throughout the process, ranging from scientific articles to the spatial database
used in the LULUCF sector, and are stored in the MCTI’s institutional network. As reported in BUR3,
the sectoral reference reports, which transparently capture methodological details, are also archived
with the MCTI and are made publicly available on the website of the National Emissions Registry
System (SIRENE). As described in the previous BUR, SIRENE provides security and transparency to
the preparation of the National GHG Inventories, and also makes available the results of national
emissions.

2.1 METHODOLOGY

The National GHG Emissions Inventory is prepared in accordance with the guidelines for the
elaboration of the National Communications of Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention,
adopted by decision 17/CP.8.

The methodological approaches and guidance used in the National GHG Inventory were based
on the “Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories” (IPCC, 1997); “Good
Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry” (GPG LULUCF, 2003) and “Good
Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories” (GPG,
2000). Some of the estimates already take into account information published in the “2006 IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories” (IPCC,2006).

In some relevant sectors for Brazil, such as Agriculture and Land Use, Land-Use Change and
Forestry, no methodologies can be readily applied, given that the emission factors and parameters
recommended by the IPCC largely reflect temperate climate developed countries circumstances, not
necessarily adequate to Brazilian national characteristics. Brazil has characteristics that are not yet
fully mapped and that need to be studied in more detail: its forest cover, agricultural sector and cattle
herd are areas where methodological inadequacies will be significantly amplified. Characterization
of the vegetation in terms of carbon content, CO2 removals driven by this vegetation, the special
conditions of fertilization used in agriculture, and the accurate description of conditions for
raising cattle are some examples of what requires extensive and in-depth research. For the Third

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVAL BY 15

SINKS OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOT CONTROLLED BY THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL
 National GHG Inventory, a great effort was made to obtain information corresponding to domestic
circumstances, in addition to seeking to use more detailed IPCC methodologies in order to obtain
more accurate estimates.

The methodological references employed to obtain a data set for activity data, emission
factors, and assumptions adopted for the preparation of this BUR were the same as those stated
in Brazil’s Third National Communication (TCN, for its acronym in Portuguese). Detailed information
for the Energy; Industrial Processes; Agriculture; Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF);
and Waste Treatment sectors are available in Volume III of the TCN. In order to be able to update
emissions beyond the last reported year, i.e., for 2011-2016, estimates were based on national official
data from public platforms or yearbooks from different government or private bodies, in addition
to information from industrial associations for activity data updates, while maintaining the same
parameters and emission factors as those of the TCN. The main sources of information on activity
data were the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE for its acronym in Portuguese),
the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa for its acronym in Portuguese), the Energy
Research Office (EPE for its acronym in Portuguese), and the National Institute for Space Research
(INPE for its acronym in Portuguese). For methodological details, see Appendix II: Methodological
summary table applied to the National Inventory.

As set forth in paragraph 12 of Decision 17/CP.8, to the extent possible, the key categories are
analyzed to identify the subsectors that should be prioritized in terms of methodological refinement,
taking into consideration its contribution to the total emissions result.

2.2 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

Uncertainty analysis performed for this Inventory considered characteristics of the individual
sectors, the data available and the resources applied in determining emission factors that were most
appropriate to Brazilian circumstances.

The following tables present emissions uncertainties estimates for CO2, CH4 and N2O, which
account for 99.4% of emissions in the last year reported. The same criteria used for calculating
uncertainties for the Third Inventory has been used for year 2016.

16 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

TABLE IV: UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH CO2 EMISSIONS IN 2016

Sector 2016

Uncertainty (%) Emissions (Gg CO2)

Energy 3 399,798
Fuel combustion 3 382,293
Fugitive Emissions 25 17,505
Coal Mining 32 2,062
Extraction and Transportation of Oil and Natural Gas 28 15,443
Industrial Processes 3 78,094
Cement Production 4 22,415
Lime Production 10 6,392
Other uses of Limestone and Dolomite 21 1,367
Iron and Steel Production 6 37,133
Aluminum Production 6 1,321
Chemical Industry 7 2,952
Other Industries 4 6,514
Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry 32 268,962
Waste Treatment 57 231
TOTAL 12 747,085

TABLE V: UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH CH4 EMISSIONS IN 2016

Sector 2016
Uncertainty (%) Emissions (Gg CH4)
Energy 49 604.9
Fuel Combustion 73 386.3
Fugitive Emissions 44 218.6
Coal Mining 73 56.8
Extraction and Transportation of Oil and Natural Gas 54 161.8
Industrial Processes 10 36.4
Iron and Steel Production 15 21.2
Other Metallurgical industries 15 3.3
Chemical Industry 17 11.9
Agriculture 31 13,087.1
Enteric Fermentation 34 11,822.9
Manure Management 38 630.9
Rice Cultivations 45 459.9
Burning of Crop Residues 32 173.4
Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry 72 672.0
Waste Treatment 16 2,868.5
Solid Waste 23 1,497.1
Wastewater 23 1,371.4
Industrial 30 817.4
Domestic 35 554.0
TOTAL 24 17,268.9

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVAL BY 17

SINKS OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOT CONTROLLED BY THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL
 TABLE VI: UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH N2O EMISSIONS IN 2016

Sector 2016

Uncertaint (%) Emissions (Gg N2O)

Energy 101 32.25

Industrial Processes 10 1.71

Chemical Industry 4 0.70

Metallurgical Industry 16 1.01

Agriculture 48 530.27

Manure Management 43 15.82

Agricultural Soils 50 509.95

Animals on Pasture 81 173.01

Other direct sources 56 141.04

Indirect Emissions 102 195.90

Burning of Crop Residues 51 4.50

Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry 101 25.14

Waste Treatment 15 7.79

TOTAL 44 597.16

TABLE VII: UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH EMISSIONS BY GAS, AND

UNCERTAINTIES FROM THE TOTAL RESULT IN 2016

Gas Emissions 2016 Uncertainty GWP Emissions 2016

(Gg) (%) (Gg CO2e)

CO2 747,085 12 1 747,085

CH4 17,269 24 21 362,647

N2O 597 44 310 185,120

TOTAL 11 1,294,852

The following tables provide estimates of greenhouse gas emissions for the years 1994, 2000,
2010, 2012, 2015, and 2016, by type of gas and by sector, as suggested by Decision 17/CP.8 22. Since
this decision allows so, Brazil chose not to estimate SO2 emissions as they are not relevant for the
country.

18 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

 TABLE VIII: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SOURCES FOR THE YEAR 1994, IN GIGAGRAM (Gg)

Gg

PFCs HFCs
1994 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC- HFC- SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot 152a_pot 134a

ENERGY 193,669 193,669 489.5 14.83 8,974.6 1,806.4 1,025.5

Fuel Combustion 185,665 185,665 403.7 14.77 8,974.6 1,806.4 1,025.5

Energy Subsector 23,841 23,841 24.4 3.41 1,292.7 258.6 293.9

Public Service Power Plants 7,455 7,455 0.1 0.05 3.9 61.2 0.9

Self-Producer Power Plants 2,839 2,839 0.8 0.16 39.3 16.4 0.6

Charcoal Plants NO NO 13.8 1.84 918.5 2.3 275.6

Other 13,547 13,547 9.7 1.36 331.0 178.7 16.8

Industrial Subsector 39,443 39,443 17.7 2.97 837.7 159.5 31.7

Iron and Steel 5,318 5,318 0.2 0.03 3.1 13.1 1.3

Ferroalloys 105 105 0.0 0.00 0.1 0.2 0.0

Chemical Industry 9,114 9,114 0.8 0.12 27.5 31.7 2.8

Non-ferrous Metals 1,380 1,380 0.1 0.02 3.4 2.8 0.2

Pulp and Paper 2,954 2,954 1.2 0.49 381.4 18.7 8.9

Food and Beverages 3,642 3,642 9.9 1.69 178.1 39.2 9.4

Cement 5,060 5,060 2.3 0.10 46.9 13.0 1.7

Mining 3,216 3,216 0.2 0.03 7.1 9.4 0.8

Textile 1,338 1,338 0.1 0.04 9.3 2.8 0.4

Ceramics 2,529 2,529 2.1 0.28 128.5 13.3 3.9

Other Industries 4,787 4,787 0.8 0.17 52.3 15.3 2.3

Transport Subsector 91,283 91,283 75.1 4.57 5,534.6 1,208.2 477.5

Civil Aviation 4,446 4,446 0.0 0.12 35.2 4.4 1.3

Road Transportation 82,058 82,058 74.7 3.88 5,486.8 1,093.2 471.3

Railways 1,242 1,242 0.1 0.48 4.2 20.8 1.8

Domestic Water-borne
3,537 3,537 0.3 0.09 8.4 89.8 3.1
Navigation
Residential Subsector 15,239 15,239 269.4 2.85 1,218.4 27.4 182.8

Agriculture Subsector 12,332 12,332 13.5 0.93 86.3 142.0 36.4

Commercial Subsector 1,570 1,570 3.5 0.03 4.0 4.1 2.4

Public Subsector 1,957 1,957 0.1 0.01 0.9 6.6 0.8

SINKS OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOT CONTROLLED BY THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVAL BY
19
20
Gg

PFCs HFCs
1994 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC- HFC- SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot 152a_pot 134a

Fugitive Emissions 8,004 8,004 85.8 0.06 - - -

Coal Mining 1,348 1,348 42.4 NO NO NO NO

Oil and Natural Gas 6,656 6,656 43.4 0.06 NE NE NE

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 51,276 51,276 44.2 17.47 834.0 51.1 370.7 0.3231 0.0279 0.1566 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0685 0.0140

Cement Production 10,086 10,086

Lime Production 4,098 4,098

Other uses of Limestone and
1,480 1,480
Dolomite
Other Uses of Soda Ash 187 187

Ammonia Production 1,689 1,689

Nitric Acid Production 2.01 0.6

Adipic Acid Production 13.99 0.8 0.3

FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Caprolactam Production 0.31

Calcium Carbide Production NO NO

Methanol Production 59 59 0.5

Ethylene Production 4 4 5.7 2.7

Vinyl Chloride Production 120 120 3.5

Ethylene Oxide Production 85 85 0.3

Acrylonitrile Production 18 18 0.1

Carbon Black Production 406 406

Phosphoric Acid Production 87 87

Production of Other Chemicals 0.1 24.3

Iron and Steel Production 29,152 29,152 32.8 1.04 708.1 29.8 20.7

Ferroalloy Production 178 178 3.7 0.08 73.6 1.9 1.9

Non-Ferrous Metals Production,
1,279 1,279 1.1 0.04 22.8 10.8 0.7
except Aluminum
Aluminum Production 1,955 1,955 0.3231 0.0279

Magnesium Production 0.0099

Pulp and Paper 28.7 7.7 19.0

Food Production 140.9

Beverage Production 156.9

HCFC-22 Production 0.1566

Use of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0685 0.0041
Non-Energetic Consumption other
393 393
than that in Chemical Industries
 Gg

PFCs HFCs
1994 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC- HFC- SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot 152a_pot 134a

SOLVENTS AND OTHER PRODUCT

- - - - - 55,789.8
USES
AGRICULTURE - 9,880.1 334.66 3,908.1 106.2 -

Enteric Fermentation - 8,786.7 - - - -

Cattle 8,370.5

Dairy Cattle 1,262.8

Beef Cattle 7,107.7

Other Animals 416.2

Manure Management - 457.9 11.21 - - -

Cattle 204.6 3.04

Dairy Cattle 37.6 1.24

Beef Cattle 167.0 1.80

Swine 169.4 2.48

Poultry 61.3 5.39

Other Animals 22.6 0.30

Agricultural Soils - 320.48 - - -

Direct Emissions 201.60

Animals on Pasture 137.50

Cattle 116.02

Other 21.48

Synthetic Fertilizers 14.74

Organic Fertilizers 15.87

Cattle 4.97

Other 10.90

Crop Residues 18.94

Soy Bean 6.07

Sugarcane 1.15

Beans 1.17

Rice 1.21

Corn 5.29

SINKS OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOT CONTROLLED BY THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVAL BY
Manioc 2.67

Other 1.38

Organic Soils 14.55

21
22
Gg

PFCs HFCs
1994 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC- HFC- SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot 152a_pot 134a

Indirect Emissions 118.88

Atmospheric Deposition 24.94

Synthetic Fertilizers 3.76

Animal Manure 21.18

Cattle 16.71

Other 4.47

Leaching 93.94

Synthetic Fertilizers 13.87

Animal Manure 80.07

Cattle 62.68

Other 17.39

Rice Cultivations - 520.8 - - - -

FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Burning of Crop Residues - 114.7 2.97 3,908.1 106.2 -

Cotton 0.5 0.01 16.8 0.5

Sugarcane 114.2 2.96 3,891.3 105.7

LAND USE, LAND-USE CHANGE
2,353,400 -362,411 823,280 1,164.9 46.65 20,412.7 566.6 -
AND FORESTRY
Land-Use Change 1,176,700 -362,411 814,289 1,164.9 46.65 20,412.7 566.6 -

Liming 1,176,700 1,176,700 - - - - -

WASTE TREATMENT 66 66 1,446.1 4.73 - - -

Solid Waste 66 66 1,023.6

Wastewater 422.5 4.73

Industrial 126.9

Domestic 295.6 4.73

TOTAL 2,598,411 -362,411 1,068,291 13,024.8 418.34 34,129.4 2,530.3 57,186.0 0.3231 0.0279 0.1566 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0685 0.0140

Notation keys: NO — Not Occuring; NE — Not Estimated; NA — Not Applicable (cells in gray)
 TABLE IX: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SOURCES FOR THE YEAR 2000, IN GIGAGRAM (Gg)

Gg

PFCs HFCs
2000 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC- HFC- SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot 152a_pot 134a

ENERGY 267,057 267,057 503.6 18.18 7,647.9 2,198.2 918.2

Fuel Combustion 256,320 256,320 384.6 18.07 7,647.9 2,198.2 918.2

Energy Subsector 40,484 40,484 20.8 3.01 1,104.7 400.7 249.6

Public Service Power Plants 19,075 19,075 0.4 0.14 9.1 136.4 2.1

Self-Producer Power Plants 5,141 5,141 1.4 0.25 63.4 34.3 1.3

Charcoal Plants NO NO 11.7 1.56 777.7 1.9 233.3

Other 16,268 16,268 7.3 1.06 254.5 228.1 12.9

Industrial Subsector 58,419 58,419 19.9 3.33 1,036.8 221.5 41.7

Iron and Steel 4,620 4,620 0.1 0.02 3.2 10.8 1.1

Ferroalloys 37 37 0.1 0.01 5.0 0.3 0.1

Chemical Industry 13,938 13,938 1.3 0.13 20.4 59.4 3.3

Non-ferrous Metals 3,709 3,709 0.1 0.02 1.1 7.3 0.1

Pulp and Paper 4,320 4,320 1.5 0.60 483.5 23.8 10.2

Food and Beverages 4,476 4,476 11.1 1.84 187.5 44.6 9.7

Cement 10,350 10,350 2.3 0.12 114.2 20.6 8.3

Mining 5,302 5,302 0.3 0.05 7.1 14.9 0.8

Textile 1,268 1,268 0.1 0.04 7.3 2.5 0.4

Ceramics 3,382 3,382 2.2 0.31 140.8 17.5 4.2

Other Industries 7,017 7,017 0.8 0.19 66.7 19.8 3.5

Transport Subsector 121,748 121,748 67.3 7.86 4,242.7 1,377.8 412.2

Civil Aviation 6,206 6,206 - 0.17 40.3 6.1 1.7

Road Transportation 111,337 111,337 66.9 7.13 4,191.1 1,275.7 406.0

Railways 1,247 1,247 0.1 0.48 4.3 20.9 1.9

Domestic Water-bome Navigation 2,958 2,958 0.3 0.08 7.0 75.1 2.6

Residential Subsector 17,179 17,179 261.5 2.85 1,172.3 28.5 175.9

Agriculture Subsector 14,152 14,152 12.0 0.96 86.9 159.7 35.5

Commercial Subsector 2,216 2,216 3.1 0.04 3.9 5.3 2.5

SINKS OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOT CONTROLLED BY THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVAL BY
Public Subsector 2,122 2,122 - 0.02 0.6 4.7 0.8

23
24
Gg

PFCs HFCs
2000 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC- HFC- SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot 152a_pot 134a

Fugitive Emissions 10,737 10,737 119.0 0.11 - - -

Coal Mining 1,291 1,291 43.3 NO NO NO NO

Oil and Natural Gas 9,446 9,446 75.7 0.11 NE NE NE

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 64,314 64,314 43.7 21.09 788.1 79.1 532.1 0.1465 0.0117 0.0000 0.0000 0.0071 0.0075 0.0001 0.5023 0.0153

Cement Production 16,047 16,047

Lime Production 5,008 5,008

Other uses of Limestone and
1,756 1,756
Dolomite
Other uses of Soda Ash 243 243

Ammonia Production 1,663 1,663

Nitric Acid Production 2.09 0.6

Adipic Acid Production 17.51 1.0 0.3

FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Caprolactam Production 0.34

Calcium Carbide Production 51 51

Methanol Production 56 56 0.5

Ethylene Production 5 5 7.9 3.7

Vinyl Chloride Production 125 125 3.6

Ethylene Oxide Production 133 133 0.5

Acrylonitrile Production 20 20 0.1

Carbon Black Production 457 457

Phosphoric Acid Production 104 104

Production of Other Chemicals 0.1 35.6

Iron ana Steel Production 34,052 34,052 31.0 1.06 674.4 54.9 20.6

Ferroalloy Production 512 512 3.6 0.07 72.4 3.8 1.8

Non-Ferrous Metals Production,
1,462 1,462 0.1 0.02 3.1 9.5 0.2
except Aluminum
Aluminum Production 2,116 2,116 0.1465 0.0117

Magnesium Production 0.0103

Pulp and Paper 37.2 10.0 24.6

Food Production 252.8

Beverage Production 189.1

HCFC-22 Production 0.0000

Use of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 0.0000 0.0071 0.0075 0.0001 0.5023 0.0050
Non-Energetic Consumption other
504 504
than that in Chemical Industries
 Gg

PFCs HFCs
2000 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC- HFC- SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot 152a_pot 134a

SOLVENTS AND OTHER PRODUCT

- - - - - 78,597.4
USES
AGRICULTURE - 10,382.3 355.93 3,576.4 97.2 -

Enteric Fermentation - 9,349.5 - - - -

Cattle 9,005.8

Dairy Cattle 1,177.9

Beef Cattle 7,827.9

Other Animals 343.7

Manure Management - 479.7 11.49 - - -

Cattle 215.9 2.98

Dairy Cattle 34.1 1.09

Beef Cattle 181.8 1.89

Swine 166.5 2.06

Poultry 78.1 6.20

Other Animals 19.2 0.25

Agricultural Soils - 341.72 - - -

Direct Emissions 213.85

Animals on Pasture 140.12

Cattle 122.04

Other 18.08

Synthetic Fertilizers 21.28

Organic Fertilizers 15.88

Cattle 4.87

Other 11.01

Crop Residues 21.66

Soy Bean 8.00

Sugarcane 1.82

Beans 1.06

Rice 1.28

Corn 5.27

SINKS OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOT CONTROLLED BY THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVAL BY
Manioc 2.52

Other 1.71

Organic Soils 14.91

25
26
Gg

PFCs HFCs
2000 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC- HFC- SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot 152a_pot 134a

Indirect Emissions 127.87

Atmospheric Deposition 26.53

Synthetic Fertilizers 4.94

Animal Manure 21.59

Cattle 17.49

Other 4.10

Leaching 101.34

Synthetic Fertilizers 19.66

Animal Manure 81.68

Cattle 65.59

Other 16.09

Rice Cultivations - 448.1 - - - -

FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Burning of Crop Residues - 105.0 2.72 3,576.4 97.2 -

Cotton

Sugarcane 105.0 2.72 3,576.4 97.2

LAND USE, LAND-USE CHANGE
1,519,947 -385,789 1,134,158 1,599.2 58.96 26,956.8 657.6 -
AND FORESTRY
Land-Use Change 1,511,230 -385,789 1,125,441 1,599.2 58.96 26,956.8 657.6 -

Liming 8,717 8,717 - - - - -

WASTE TREATMENT 95 95 1,798.8 5.68 - - -

Solid Waste 95 95 1,204.3 0.01

Wastewater 594.5 5.67

Industrial 222.8

Domestic 371.7 5.67

TOTAL 1,851,413 -385,789 1,465,624 14,327.6 459.84 38,969.2 3,032.1 80,047.7 0.1465 0.0117 0.0000 0.0000 0.0071 0.0075 0.0001 0.5023 0.0153

Notation keys: NO — Not Occuring; NE — Not Estimated; NA — Not Applicable (cells in gray)
 TABLE X: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SOURCES FOR THE YEAR 2010, IN GIGAGRAM (Gg)

Gg

PFCs HFCs
2010 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC- HFC- SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot 152a_pot 134a

ENERGY 348,883 348,883 620.6 29.25 7,111.2 2,498.1 849.9

Fuel Combustion 333,669 333,669 439.7 29.04 7,111.2 2,498.1 849.9

Energy Subsector 58,859 58,859 34.6 5.03 1,620.1 583.6 251.8

Public Service Power Plants 26,593 26,593 1.2 0.32 19.7 155.2 3.5

Self-Producer Power Plants 9,446 9,446 6.0 0.94 305.2 54.9 2.6

Charcoal Plants NO NO 10.8 1.45 723.2 1.8 217.0

Other 22,820 22,820 16.6 2.32 572.0 371.7 28.7

Industrial Subsector 68,977 68,977 34.3 5.73 1,708.8 287.2 66.3

Iron and Steel 5,540 5,540 0.2 0.02 3.7 11.4 1.4

Ferroalloys 102 102 0.1 0.02 7.7 0.6 0.2

Chemical Industry 13,847 13,847 2.5 0.18 22.5 58.3 3.4

Non-ferrous Metals 5,476 5,476 0.2 0.03 2.1 9.7 0.2

Pulp and Paper 3,855 3,855 2.5 1.03 938.9 35.9 18.5

Food and Beverages 3,965 3,965 23.2 3.52 260.9 81.0 14.5

Cement 14,708 14,708 1.1 0.12 138.6 28.0 13.6

Mining 7,289 7,289 0.3 0.07 25.5 21.1 2.7

Textile 1,015 1,015 0.1 0.04 8.3 1.8 0.4

Ceramics 5,007 5,007 3.1 0.42 202.3 19.4 6.4

Other Industries 8,173 8,173 1.0 0.28 98.3 20.0 5.0

Transport Subsector 168,598 168,598 58.4 13.74 2,348.3 1,384.0 281.5

Civil Aviation 9,751 9,751 0.0 0.27 38.5 9.3 1.2

Road Transportation 151,497 151,497 57.8 12.16 2,288.8 1,211.1 271.8

Railways 2,935 2,935 0.2 1.19 10.5 51.5 4.6

Domestic Water-borne
4,415 4,415 0.4 0.12 10.5 112.1 3.9
Navigation
Residential Subsector 17,249 17,249 290.1 3.15 1,306.7 30.6 196.1

Agriculture Subsector 17,348 17,348 18.5 1.33 122.5 208.9 51.1

Commercial Subsector 1,446 1,446 3.8 0.04 4.6 2.6 2.7

SINKS OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOT CONTROLLED BY THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVAL BY
Public Subsector 1,192 1,192 0.0 0.02 0.2 1.2 0.4

27
28
Gg

PFCs HFCs
2010 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC- HFC- SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot 152a_pot 134a

Fugitive Emissions 15,214 15,214 180.9 0.21 - - -

Coal Mining 1,846 1,846 39.2 NO NO NO NO

Oil and Natural Gas 13,368 13,368 141.7 0.21 NE NE NE

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 80,787 80,787 45.3 2.15 809.6 100.8 736.8 0.0767 0.0059 0.0000 0.1059 0.5012 0.4671 0.0000 2.7362 0.0077

Cement Production 21,288 21,288

Lime Production 5,950 5,950

Other uses of Limestone and
3,060 3,060
Dolomite
Other Uses of Soda Ash 396 396

Ammonia Production 1,739 1,739

Nitric Acid Production 0.80 0.6

Adipic Acid Production 0.13 1.4 0.4

FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Caprolactam Production NO

Calcium Carbide Production 42 42

Methanol Production 56 56 0.5

Ethylene Production 6 6 10.6 4.6

Vinyl Chloride Production 213 213 6.2

Ethylene Oxide Production 146 146 0.5

Acrylonitrile Production 22 22 0.1

Carbon Black Production 647 647 0.1

Phosphoric Acid Production 112 112

Production of Other Chemicals 0.2 50.3
Iron and Steel Production 38,361 38,361 28.6 1.08 633.2 60.1 20.2

Ferroalloy Production 1,195 1,195 4.8 0.11 96.7 6.2 2.5

Non-Ferrous Metals Production,
4,332 4,332 0.1 0.03 4.9 13.8 0.3
except Aluminum
Aluminum Production 2,543 2,543 0.0767 0.0059

Magnesium Production 0.0000

Pulp and Paper 73.4 19.6 48.5

Food Production 407.2

Beverage Production 196.9

HCFC-22 Production 0.0000

Use of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 0.1059 0.5012 0.4671 0.0000 2.7362 0.0077
Non-Energetic Consumption other
than that in Chemical 679 679
Industries
 Gg

PFCs HFCs
2010 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC- HFC- SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot 152a_pot 134a

SOLVENTS AND OTHER PRODUCT

- - - - - 152,514.6
USES
AGRICULTURE - 12,415.6 472.08 6,313.5 171.6 -

Enteric Fermentation - 11,158.0 - - - -

Cattle 10,798.4

Dairy Cattle 1,424.0

Beef Cattle 9,374.4

Other Animals 359.6

Manure Management - 608.1 14.83 - - -

Cattle 258.7 3.46

Dairy Cattle 44.0 1.38

Beef Cattle 214.7 2.08

Swine 214.9 2.35

Poultry 115.3 8.78

Other Animals 19.2 0.24

Agricultural Soils - 452.45 - - -

Direct Emissions 282.31

Animals on Pasture 170.24

Cattle 152.00

Other 18.24

Synthetic Fertilizers 35.74

Organic Fertilizers 21.33

Cattle 5.77

Other 15.56

Crop Residues 39.49

Soy Bean 16.75

Sugarcane 5.47

Beans 1.09

Rice 1.29

Corn 9.02

SINKS OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOT CONTROLLED BY THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVAL BY
Manioc 2.73

Other 3.14

Organic Soils 15.51

29
30
Gg

PFCs HFCs
2010 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC- HFC- SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot 152a_pot 134a

Indirect Emissions 170.14

Atmospheric Deposition 35.65

Synthetic Fertilizers 9.13

Animal Manure 26.52

Cattle 21.71

Other 4.81

Leaching 134.49

Synthetic Fertilizers 33.65

Animal Manure 100.84

Cattle 81.41

Other 19.43

Rice Cultivations - 464.2 - - - -

FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Burning of Crop Residues - 185.3 4.80 6,313.5 171.6 -

Cotton NO NO NO NO NO

Sugarcane 185.3 4.80 6,313.5 171.6

LAND USE, LAND-USE CHANGE
887,536 -626,905 260,631 606.9 24.83 10,745.1 307.5 -
AND FORESTRY
Land-Use Change 877,112 -626,905 250,207 606.9 24.83 10,745.1 307.5 -

Liming 10,424 10,424 - - - - -

WASTE TREATMENT 175 175 2,411.6 7.21 - - -

Solid Waste 175 175 1,268.5 0.01

Wastewater 1,143.1 7.20

Industrial 630.3

Domestic 512.8 7.20

TOTAL 1,317,381 -626,905 690,476 16,100.0 535.52 24,979.4 3,078.0 154,101.3 0.0767 0.0059 0.0000 0.1059 0.5012 0.4671 0.0000 2.7362 0.0077

Notation keys: NO — Not Occuring; NE — Not Estimated; NA — Not Applicable (cells in gray)
 TABLE XI: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SOURCES FOR THE YEAR 2012, IN GIGAGRAM (Gg)

Gg

PFCs HFCs
2012 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC-152a_ HFC- SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot pot 134a

ENERGY 396,547 396,547 584.0 31.11 6,907.7 2,566.2 833.6

Fuel Combustion 381,786 381,786 409.9 30.95 6,907.7 2,566.2 833.6

Energy Subsector 70,114 70,114 33.1 4.86 1,587.8 682.9 255.3

Public Service Power Plants 34,909 34,909 1.7 0.44 27.6 197.2 4.5

Self-Producer Power Plants 10,365 10,365 6.4 1.00 331.9 61.8 2.9

Charcoal Plants NO NO 11.2 1.49 746.0 1.9 223.8

Other 24,840 24,840 13.8 1.93 482.3 422.0 24.1

Industrial Subsector 72,448 72,448 36.1 5.91 1,760.8 304.0 68.9

Iron and Steel 5,401 5,401 0.1 0.02 3.8 10.9 1.5

Ferroalloys 238 238 0.1 0.02 6.9 1.4 0.2

Chemical Industry 14,014 14,014 2.5 0.18 22.0 56.6 3.2

Non-ferrous Metals 5,900 5,900 0.2 0.03 2.3 10.1 0.2

Pulp and Paper 3,864 3,864 2.4 1.01 926.2 35.3 17.2

Food and Beverages 4,267 4,267 24.0 3.64 268.2 86.8 15.0

Cement 17,112 17,112 2.0 0.17 177.1 34.0 16.2

Mining 7,277 7,277 0.3 0.07 25.9 25.0 2.8

Textile 989 989 0.1 0.04 6.7 1.8 0.3

Ceramics 5,220 5,220 3.3 0.45 221.1 20.9 7.2

Other Industries 8,166 8,166 1.1 0.28 100.6 21.2 5.1

Transport Subsector 201,605 201,605 60.6 15.95 2,265.8 1,334.9 281.0

Civil Aviation 11,218 11,218 0.0 0.31 42.6 10.6 1.4

Road Transportation 183,199 183,199 60.0 14.30 2,202.4 1,165.5 271.3

Railways 3,034 3,034 0.2 1.23 10.9 53.3 4.7

Domestic Water-borne
4,154 4,154 0.4 0.11 9.9 105.5 3.6
Navigation
Residential Subsector 17,598 17,598 258.4 2.85 1,167.1 29.1 175.1

Agriculture Subsector 17,490 17,490 17.7 1.32 121.2 212.1 50.1

Commercial Subsector 1,701 1,701 4.0 0.05 4.8 2.4 2.9

SINKS OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOT CONTROLLED BY THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVAL BY
Public Subsector 830 830 0.0 0.01 0.2 0.8 0.3

31
32
Gg

PFCs HFCs
2012 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC-152a_ HFC- SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot pot 134a

Fugitive Emissions 14,761 14,761 174.1 0.16 - - -

Coal Mining 1,372 1,372 41.0 NO NO NO NO

Oil and Natural Gas 13,389 13,389 133.1 0.16 NE NE NE

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 86,604 86,604 44.0 1.86 795.1 104.1 734.0 0.0655 0.0050 0.0000 0.1286 0.5146 0.4767 0.0000 2.9372 0.0083

Cement Production 24,998 24,998

Lime Production 6,403 6,403

Other uses of Limestone and
1,770 1,770
Dolomite
Other Uses of Soda Ash 375 375

Ammonia Production 1,758 1,758

Nitric Acid Production 0.51 0.9

Adipic Acid Production 0.12 1.0 0.3

FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Caprolactam Production NO

Calcium Carbide Production 42 42

Methanol Production 46 46 0.4

Ethylene Production 6 6 10.3 4.4

Vinyl Chloride Production 154 154 6.0

Ethylene Oxide Production 146 146 0.5

Acrylonitrile Production 22 22 0.1

Carbon Black Production 647 647 0.1

Phosphoric Acid Production 90 90

Production of Other Chemicals 0.2 48.9

Iron and Steel Production 40,189 40,189 28.3 1.10 630.8 62.2 20.4

Ferroalloy Production 1,044 1,044 4.2 0.09 84.9 5.5 2.2

Non-Ferrous Metals Production.
5,857 5,857 0.1 0.04 6.5 15.9 0.4
except Aluminum
Aluminum Production 2,378 2,378 0.0655 0.0050

Magnesium Production 0.0000

Pulp and Paper 71.9 19.2 47.5

Food Production 407.2

Beverage Production 196.9

HCFC-22 Production 0.0000

Use of HFCs. PFCs and SF6 0.1286 0.5146 0.4767 0.0000 2.9372 0.0083
Non-Energetic Consumption other
than that in Chemical 679 679
Industries
 Gg

PFCs HFCs
2012 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC-152a_ HFC- SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot pot 134a

SOLVENTS AND OTHER PRODUCT

- - - - - 129,247.4
USES
AGRICULTURE - 12,511.7 491.10 5,616.9 152.6 -

Enteric Fermentation - 11,287.7 - - - -

Cattle 10,934.5

Dairy Cattle 1,435.1

Beef Cattle 9,499.4

Other Animals 353.2

Manure Management - 610.9 14.95 - - -

Cattle 261.0 3.51

Dairy Cattle 43.7 1.42

Beef Cattle 217.3 2.09

Swine 215.9 2.32

Poultry 115.3 8.88

Other Animals 18.7 0.24

Agricultural Soils - 471.88 - - -

Direct Emissions 292.69

Animals on Pasture 170.44

Cattle 152.82

Other 17.62

Synthetic Fertilizers 43.70

Organic Fertilizers 21.01

Cattle 5.86

Other 15.15

Crop Residues 41.91

Soy Bean 16.04

Sugarcane 5.82

Beans 0.97

Rice 1.33

Corn 11.58

SINKS OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOT CONTROLLED BY THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVAL BY
Manioc 2.52

Other 3.65

Organic Soils 15.63

33
34
Gg

PFCs HFCs
2012 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC-152a_ HFC- SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot pot 134a

Indirect Emissions 179.19

Atmospheric Deposition 37.38

Synthetic Fertilizers 10.79

Animal Manure 26.59

Cattle 21.84

Other 4.75

Leaching 141.81

Synthetic Fertilizers 40.87

Animal Manure 100.94

Cattle 81.90

Other 19.04

Rice Cultivations - 448.3 - - - -

FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Burning of Crop Residues - 164.8 4.27 5,616.9 152.6 -

Cotton NO NO NO NO NO

Sugarcane 164.8 4.27 5,616.9 152.6

LAND USE. LAND-USE CHANGE AND
704,257 -655,924 48,333 393.9 17.47 7,256.8 231.6 -
FORESTRY
Land-Use Change 689,294 -655,924 33,370 393.9 17.47 7,256.8 231.6 -

Liming 14,963 14,963 - - - - -

WASTE TREATMENT 195 195 2,576.5 7.33 - - -

Solid Waste 195 195 1,365.5 0.01

Wastewater 1,211.0 7.32

Industrial 689.6

Domestic 521.4 7.32

TOTAL 1,187,603 -655,924 531,679 16,110.1 548.87 20,576.5 3,054.5 130,815.0 0.0655 0.0050 0.0000 0.1286 0.5146 0.4767 0.0000 2.9372 0.0083

Notation keys: NO — Not Occuring; NE — Not Estimated; NA — Not Applicable (cells in gray)
 TABLE XII: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SOURCES FOR THE YEAR 2015, IN GIGAGRAM (Gg)

Gg

PFCs HFCs
2015 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC-152a_ SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23 HFC-134a
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot pot

ENERGY 430,796 430,796 624.9 32.70 6,799.4 2,513.2 774.6

Fuel Combustion 413,192 413,192 402.5 32.46 6,799.4 2,513.2 774.6

Energy Subsector 105,577 105,577 38.6 5.82 1,745.1 794.8 235.3

Public Service Power Plants 65,342 65,342 2.9 0.76 41.3 224.9 5.2

Self-Producer Power Plants 11,249 11,249 8.7 1.34 451.3 75.3 3.9

Charcoal Plants NO NO 9.8 1.31 653.9 1.6 196.2

Other 28,986 28,986 17.2 2.41 598.6 493.0 30.0

Industrial Subsector 70,136 70,136 32.6 5.57 1,929.9 296.5 66.1

Iron and Steel 5,484 5,484 0.1 0.02 3.9 10.5 1.4

Ferroalloys 117 117 0.1 0.01 5.4 1.0 0.1

Chemical Industry 13,188 13,188 2.4 0.17 21.3 53.9 3.0

Non-ferrous Metals 5,523 5,523 0.2 0.03 1.9 9.8 0.2

Pulp and Paper 4,033 4,033 2.6 1.19 1,150.1 41.7 17.6

Food and Beverages 4,235 4,235 21.0 3.20 247.1 79.9 13.7

Cement 15,895 15,895 1.6 0.15 162.5 31.4 15.2

Mining 7,394 7,394 0.4 0.07 27.5 25.6 3.0

Textile 670 670 0.1 0.03 5.6 1.3 0.3

Ceramics 5,147 5,147 3.1 0.42 208.4 20.3 6.8

Other Industries 8,450 8,450 1.0 0.28 96.2 21.1 4.8

Transport Subsector 198,857 198,857 53.8 16.75 1,841.1 1,161.4 242.0

Civil Aviation 11,696 11,696 0.0 0.31 36.7 10.7 1.3

Road Transportation 181,257 181,257 53.3 15.20 1,786.8 1,021.7 233.5

Railways 2,811 2,811 0.2 1.16 10.3 50.4 4.5

Domestic Water-borne Navigation 3,093 3,093 0.3 0.08 7.3 78.6 2.7

Residential Subsector 18,021 18,021 252.9 2.80 1,143.2 29.1 171.6

Agriculture Subsector 18,370 18,370 20.6 1.47 135.3 228.6 56.5

Commercial Subsector 1,413 1,413 4.0 0.04 4.6 2.1 2.8

SINKS OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOT CONTROLLED BY THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVAL BY
Public Subsector 818 818 0.0 0.01 0.2 0.7 0.3

35
36
Gg

PFCs HFCs
2015 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC-152a_ SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23 HFC-134a
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot pot

Fugitive Emissions 17,604 17,604 222.4 0.24 - - -

Coal Mining 1,822 1,822 51.5 NO NO NO NO

Oil and Natural Gas 15,782 15,782 170.9 0.24 NE NE NE

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 84,853 84,853 40.7 1.86 717.4 102.2 732.1 0.0333 0.0025 0.0000 0.1730 0.6535 0.6075 0.0000 3.9827 0.0092

Cement Production 25,082 25,082

Lime Production 6,392 6,392

Other uses of Limestone and
1,604 1,604
Dolomite
Other Uses of Soda Ash 375 375

Ammonia Production 1,805 1,805

Nitric Acid Production 0.51 0.8

Adipic Acid Production 0.20 0.7 0.2

FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Caprolactam Production NO

Calcium Carbide Production 42 42

Methanol Production 32 32 0.3

Ethylene Production 6 6 10.9 4.4

Vinyl Chloride Production 154 154 6.0

Ethylene Oxide Production 146 146 0.5

Acrylonitrile Production 22 22 0.1

Carbon Black Production 647 647 0.1

Phosphoric Acid Production 98 98

Production of Other Chemicals 0.2 48.9

Iron and Steel Production 41,064 41,064 25.4 1.05 572.5 65.9 19.1

Ferroalloy Production 800 800 3.3 0.07 66.7 4.3 1.7

Non-Ferrous Metals Production,
4,665 4,665 0.1 0.03 5.6 11.7 0.3
except Aluminum
Aluminum Production 1,281 1,281 0.0333 0.0025

Magnesium Production 0.0000

Pulp and Paper 71.9 19.2 47.5

Food Production 407.2

Beverage Production 196.9

HCFC-22 Production 0.0000

Use of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 0.1730 0.6535 0.6075 0.0000 3.9827 0.0092
Non-Energetic Consumption other
than that in Chemical 638 638
Industries
 Gg

PFCs HFCs
2015 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC-152a_ SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23 HFC-134a
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot pot

SOLVENTS AND OTHER PRODUCT

- - - - - 9,236.7
USES
AGRICULTURE - 12,914.4 510.67 5,820.6 158.2 -

Enteric Fermentation - 11,620.1 - - - -

Cattle 11,247.8

Dairy Cattle 1,410.2

Beef Cattle 9,837.6

Other Animals 372.3

Manure Management - 631.8 15.74 - - -

Cattle 265.6 3.51

Dairy Cattle 41.9 1.39

Beef Cattle 223.7 2.12

Swine 227.1 2.42

Poultry 119.6 9.56

Other Animals 19.5 0.25

Agricultural Soils - 490.50 - - -

Direct Emissions 307.71

Animals on Pasture 172.83

Cattle 154.41

Other 18.42

Synthetic Fertilizers 44.31

Organic Fertilizers 22.41

Cattle 5.85

Other 16.56

Crop Residues 52.35

Soy Bean 23.74

Sugarcane 6.06

Beans 1.07

Rice 1.41

Corn 13.90

SINKS OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOT CONTROLLED BY THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVAL BY
Manioc 2.52

Other 3.65

37
38
Gg

PFCs HFCs
2015 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC-152a_ SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23 HFC-134a
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot pot

Organic Soils 15.81

Indirect Emissions 182.79

Atmospheric Deposition 38.24

Synthetic Fertilizers 11.21

Animal Manure 27.03

Cattle 22.05

Other 4.98

Leaching 144.55

Synthetic Fertilizers 41.64

Animal Manure 102.91

Cattle 82.69

Other 20.22

FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Rice Cultivations - 491.7 - - - -

Burning of Crop Residues - 170.8 4.43 5,820.6 158.2 -

Cotton NO NO NO NO NO

Sugarcane 170.8 4.43 5,820.6 158.2

LAND USE, LAND-USE CHANGE AND
869,547 -655,924 213,623 567.7 24.48 10,311.7 317.2 -
FORESTRY
Land-Use Change 856,065 -655,924 200,141 567.7 24.48 10,311.7 317.2 -

Liming 13,482 13,482 - - - - -

WASTE TREATMENT 222 222 2,824.8 7.73 - - -

Solid Waste 222 222 1,448.8 0.01

Wastewater 1,376.0 7.72

Industrial 826.4

Domestic 549.6 7.72

TOTAL 1,385,418 -655,924 729,494 16,972.5 577.44 23,649.1 3,090.8 99,743.4 0.0333 0.0025 0.0000 0.1730 0.6535 0.6075 0.0000 3.9827 0.0092

Notation keys: NO — Not Occuring; NE — Not Estimated; NA — Not Applicable (cells in gray)
 TABLE XIII: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SOURCES FOR THE YEAR 2016, IN GIGAGRAM (Gg)

Gg

PFCs HFCs
2016 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC-152a_ SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23 HFC-134a
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot pot

ENERGY 399,798 399,798 604.9 32.25 6,504.8 2,319.4 713.7

Fuel Combustion 382,293 382,293 386.3 32.00 6,504.8 2,319.4 713.7

Energy Subsector 81,643 81,643 34.9 5.19 1,600.7 703.9 203.1

Public Service Power Plants 42,669 42,669 1.7 0.48 22.6 142.6 2.5

Self-Producer Power Plants 11,106 11,106 8.8 1.35 459.8 78.4 3.8

Charcoal Plants NO NO 8.4 1.13 562.8 1.4 168.8

Other 27,868 27,868 16.0 2.23 555.5 481.5 28.0

Industrial Subsector 64,662 64,662 34.6 5.89 1,962.5 290.9 64.2

Iron and Steel 4,974 4,974 0.1 0.02 3.6 10.2 1.3

Ferroalloys 233 233 0.1 0.01 5.3 1.2 0.1

Chemical Industry 12,938 12,938 2.4 0.17 19.9 51.1 2.8

Non-ferrous Metals 5,467 5,467 0.2 0.03 1.9 9.7 0.2

Pulp and Paper 4,065 4,065 2.7 1.26 1,229.1 44.0 18.6

Food and Beverages 4,109 4,109 23.5 3.54 252.9 86.8 14.3

Cement 14,227 14,227 1.5 0.14 146.0 28.2 13.7

Mining 5,566 5,566 0.3 0.05 21.5 22.2 2.4

Textile 601 601 0.0 0.03 5.4 1.2 0.3

Ceramics 4,813 4,813 2.8 0.38 187.2 18.3 6.1

Other Industries 7,669 7,669 1.0 0.26 89.7 18.0 4.4

Transport Subsector 200,311 200,311 52.0 16.89 1,727.5 1,102.7 229.3

Civil Aviation 12,074 12,074 0.0 0.29 33.2 9.9 0.8

Road Transportation 183,118 183,118 51.6 15.40 1,678.6 983.3 222.0

Railways 2,752 2,752 0.2 1.14 10.1 49.4 4.4

Domestic Water-borne
2,367 2,367 0.2 0.06 5.6 60.1 2.1
Navigation
Residential Subsector 18,209 18,209 241.9 2.70 1,090.6 28.6 163.7

Agriculture Subsector 15,232 15,232 19.1 1.28 119.0 190.5 50.4

Commercial Subsector 1,442 1,442 3.8 0.04 4.4 2.1 2.7

SINKS OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOT CONTROLLED BY THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVAL BY
Public Subsector 794 794 0.0 0.01 0.1 0.7 0.3

39
40
Gg

PFCs HFCs
2016 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC-152a_ SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23 HFC-134a
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot pot

Fugitive Emissions 17,505 17,505 218.6 0.25 - - -

Coal Mining 2,062 2,062 56.8 NO NO NO NO

Oil and Natural Gas 15,443 15,443 161.8 0.25 NE NE NE

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 78,094 78,094 36.4 1.71 625.0 95.4 729.4 0.0362 0.0026 0.0000 0.1878 0.6998 0.6511 0.0000 4,3664 0,0095

Cement Production 22,415 22,415

Lime Production 6,392 6,392

Other uses of Limestone and
1,367 1,367
Dolomite
Other Uses of Soda Ash 375 375

Ammonia Production 1,805 1,805

Nitric Acid Production 0.51 0.8

Adipic Acid Production 0.19 0.7 0.2

FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Caprolactam Production

Calcium Carbide Production 42 42

Methanol Production 32 32 0.3

Ethylene Production 6 6 10.9 4.4

Vinyl Chloride Production 154 154 6.0

Ethylene Oxide Production 146 146 0.5

Acrylonitrile Production 22 22 0.1

Carbon Black Production 647 647 0.1

Phosphoric Acid Production 98 98

Production of Other Chemicals 0.2 48.9

Iron and Steel Production 37,133 37,133 21.2 0.91 482.2 59.0 16.4

Ferroalloy Production 784 784 3.2 0.07 64.8 4.2 1.7

Non-Ferrous Metals Production,
4,713 4,713 0.1 0.03 5.4 11.9 0.3
except Aluminum
Aluminum Production 1,321 1,321 0.0362 0.0026

Magnesium Production 0,0000

Pulp and Paper 71.9 19.2 47.5

Food Production 407.2

Beverage Production 196.9

HCFC-22 Production 0.0000

Use of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 0.1878 0.6998 0.6511 0.0000 4,3664 0,0095
Non-Energetic Consumption other
than that in Chemical 642 642
Industries
 Gg

PFCs HFCs
2016 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC-152a_ SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23 HFC-134a
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot pot

SOLVENTS AND OTHER PRODUCT

- - - - -
USES 105,063.0
AGRICULTURE - 13,087.1 530.27 5,908.1 160.5 -

Enteric Fermentation - 11,822.9 - - - -

Cattle 11,447.4

Dairy Cattle 1,295.9

Beef Cattle 10,151.5

Other Animals 375.5

Manure Management - 630.9 15.82 - - -

Cattle 267.6 3.48

Dairy Cattle 38.3 1.30

Beef Cattle 229.3 2.18

Swine 223.8 2.40

Poultry 119.8 9.69

Other Animals 19.7 0.25

Agricultural Soils - 509.95 - - -

Direct Emissions 314.05

Animals on Pasture 173.01

Cattle 154.51

Other 18.50

Synthetic Fertilizers 54.25

Organic Fertilizers 22.62

Cattle 5.80

Other 16.82

Crop Residues 48.30

Soy Bean 23.46

Sugarcane 6.28

Beans 0.91

Rice 1.22

Corn 10.45

SINKS OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOT CONTROLLED BY THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVAL BY
Manioc 2.31

Other 3.67

Organic Soils 15.87

41
42
Gg

PFCs HFCs
2016 CO2 CO2
CO2
(gross (net CH4 N2O CO NOx NMVOC HFC- HFC- HFC-143a_ HFC-152a_ SF6
(removals) CF4 C2F6 HFC-23 HFC-134a
emissions) emissions) 32_pot 125_pot pot pot

Indirect Emissions 195.90

Atmospheric Deposition 41.39

Synthetic Fertilizers 14.36

Animal Manure 27.03

Cattle 22.05

Other 4.98

Leaching 154.51

Synthetic Fertilizers 51.46

Animal Manure 103.05

Cattle 82.70

Other 20.35

Rice Cultivations - 459.9 - - - -

FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Burning of Crop Residues - 173.4 4.50 5,908.1 160.5 -

Cotton NO NO NO NO NO

Sugarcane 173.4 4.50 5,908.1 160.5

LAND USE, LAND-USE CHANGE AND
924,886 -655,924 268,962 672.0 25.14 11,404.8 285.1 -
FORESTRY
Land-Use Change 910,261 -655,924 254,337 672.0 25.14 11,404.8 285.1 -

Liming 14,625 14,625 - - - - -

WASTE TREATMENT 231 231 2,868.5 7.79 - - -

Solid Waste 231 231 1,497.1 0.01

Wastewater 1,371.4 7.78

Industrial 817.4

Domestic 554.0 7.78

TOTAL 1,403,009 -655,924 747,085 17,268.9 597.16 24,442.7 2,860.4 106,506.1 0.0362 0.0026 0.0000 0.1878 0.6998 0.6511 0.0000 4.3664 0.0095

Notation keys: NO — Not Occuring; NE — Not Estimated; NA — Not Applicable (cells in gray)
 2.3 EMISSIONS RESULTS

Figure II presents the annual time series of GHG emissions in Brazil, by sector, from 1990 to
2016, in carbon dioxide equivalent (GWP SAR – 100 years11).

3,500

3,000

2016 2,500

Millions of tonnes of CO2e

4.8%

2,000

Energy
32.4%
22.3%
Industrial Processes 1,500

Agriculture

LULUCF 1,000

Waste
6.9%
500

33.6%

0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

ENERGY INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES AGRICULTURE WASTE TRETMENT LAND USE, LAND-USE CHANGE AND FORESTRY

Figure II: Greenhouse gas emissions in CO2 equivalent (GWP-SAR), by sector, from 1990 to 2016.

As shown in the figure, in recent years the profile of Brazilian emissions has changed (Figure
II). Due to a reduction in deforestation, the share of national emissions from the Land Use, Land Use
Change and Forestry sector has now decreased. Consequently, the share of other sectors such as
Energy and Agriculture has become relatively larger in terms of the country’s aggregate emissions.

Most importantly, as a result of the efforts undertaken through the implementation of sectoral
mitigation plans, the country has contributed to a significant reduction in its emissions. However,
since the methodology for national inventories does not include some of these sectoral actions,
these positive results are not reflected explicitly in the historical time series. In order to bridge this
information gap, the Brazilian Government has been monitoring its initiatives and making efforts to
develop and implement appropriate methodologies to estimate sectoral emission reductions (see
section Mitigation actions and their effects).

11
GWP – 100 years metric, reference values as per the Second Assessment Report (SAR), IPCC, 1995. Available in: < http://www.ipcc.ch/
publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml>. Accessed on: 19 Jul 2018.

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVAL BY 43

SINKS OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOT CONTROLLED BY THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL
 BOX I: NATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS IN CO2 EQUIVALENT

According to Decision 17/CP.8 under the Climate Convention, the results of the inventory must be presented in absolute
gas units. If the country chooses to report its emissions in CO2 equivalent (CO2e), it could use the Global Warming Potential
(GWP) values, ​​and also the Global Temperature Potential (GTP) for a 100-year time period, published in the IPCC’s Second
Assessment Report (SAR) (IPCC, 1995). All analyzes and results presented in CO2e in this Inventory employed the GWP
metric in the SAR (100 years).

Although the use of both GWP-SAR and GTP are suggested for inventories from non-Annex I countries, subsequent IPCC
assessment reports have provided new values ​​for the GWP of gases. From the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) (IPCC,
2013), the latest publication on the topic, the values ​​for the GTP were presented for the first time, which Brazil considers
most relevant for its national context. According to the IPCC, GTP is a metric based on temperature change, i.e., it is related
to the change in the average temperature of the global surface, throughout a selected time horizon, in response to an
emission pulse. It is, therefore, more consistent with a global temperature limit target.

According to the IPCC (2013), the most appropriate metric and time horizon will depend on which aspects of climate change
are considered most important for a particular use. No metric is capable of accurately comparing all the consequences
of different emissions, and all of them involve limitations and uncertainties12. The IPCC also states that the GTP metric is
more suitable for target-based policies, while the GWP is not directly related to a temperature limit13. As such, the GTP is
the most consistent metric with a contribution to halt the increase in the global average temperature below 2° C compared
to pre-industrial levels.

The results discussed in this BUR are based on three sets of weighting values: GWP-SAR, determined by Decision 17/CP.8,
GWP-AR5 and GTP-AR5, both based on the most up-to-date science.

12
IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. SPM D.2 p.15.
13
See Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock,
G. Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin,
G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. pp. 710-720.
See also Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, L.V. Alexander, S.K. Allen, N.L. Bindoff, F.-M. Bréon, J.A. Church, U. Cubasch, S. Emori, P. Forster,
P. Friedlingstein, N. Gillett, J.M. Gregory, D.L. Hartmann, E. Jansen, B. Kirtman, R. Knutti, K. Krishna Kumar, P. Lemke, J. Marotzke, V. Masson-
Delmotte, G.A. Meehl, I.I. Mokhov, S. Piao, V. Ramaswamy, D. Randall, M. Rhein, M. Rojas, C. Sabine, D. Shindell, L.D. Talley, D.G. Vaughan and
S.-P. Xie, 2013: Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia,
V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. pp. 58-59.

44 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

 4,000,000

3,500,000
Thousands of tonnes CO2e

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
GWP-SAR GWP-AR5 GTP-AR5

GWP-SAR GWP-AR5 GTP-AR5

4.8% 5.9% 1.4%

32.4% 30.4% 42.7%

22.3% 21.0% 28.9%

6.9% 6.5%

18.4% 8.6%
33.6% 36.2%

ENERGY INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES AGRICULTURE LAND USE, LAND-USE CHANGE AND FORESTRY WASTE TREATMENT

Figure III: Evolution and sectoral participation in net CO2 equivalent emissions in 2016, by various
metrics (GWP-SAR, GWP-AR5 and GTP-AR5).

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVAL BY 45

SINKS OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOT CONTROLLED BY THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL
 TABLE XIV: ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVALS BY SINKS
OF GREENHOUSE GASES INTO CO2e, CONVERTED USING THE GTP AND
GWP METRICS, BY SECTOR

GWP-SAR 1994 2000 2010 2012 2015 2016

Gg CO2e

Energy 208,546 283,268 370,983 418,455 454,056 422,498

Industrial Processes 62,233 73,897 89,946 95,929 96,172 90,107

Agriculture 311,227 328,367 407,072 414,987 429,510 439,213

Land Use, Land-Use Change and

862,204 1,186,019 281,073 62,021 233,134 290,867
Forestry

Waste Treatment 31,900 39,631 53,054 56,574 61,939 62,884

TOTAL 1,476,110 1,911,181 1,202,128 1,047,965 1,274,810 1,305,570

GWP-AR5 1994 2000 2010 2012 2015 2016

Gg CO2e

Energy 211,477 286,214 374,373 421,491 457,404 425,719

Industrial Processes 61,968 73,317 90,863 96,861 97,256 91,229

Agriculture 365,328 385,026 472,736 480,469 496,930 506,958

Land Use, Land-Use Change and

868,259 1,194,560 284,204 63,992 236,006 294,440
Forestry

Waste Treatment 41,810 51,967 69,610 74,279 81,365 82,613

TOTAL 1,548,842 1,991,083 1,291,786 1,137,093 1,368,960 1,400,960

GTP-AR5 1994 2000 2010 2012 2015 2016

Gg CO2e

Energy 199,269 273,564 358,572 406,511 441,392 410,201

Industrial Processes 60,926 71,336 84,621 90,358 89,003 82,457

Agriculture 117,831 124,817 160,127 164,964 171,154 176,430

Land Use, Land-Use Change and

838,856 1,154,351 268,869 53,997 221,622 277,533
Forestry

Waste Treatment 6,957 8,619 11,509 12,216 13,330 13,528

TOTAL 1,223,839 1,632,687 883,697 728,046 936,501 960,149

46 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

 BOX II: REFERENCE APPROACH VS. SECTORAL APPROACH – ENERGY SECTOR

According to 2006 IPCC, it is good practice to apply both a Sectoral Approach (bottom-up methodology) and the Reference
Approach (top-down methodology) to estimate CO2 emissions from fuel combustion and to compare the results of these
two independent estimates. The emissions contained in national inventories are those estimated under the Sectoral
Approach. The Reference Approach is a straightforward method that can be applied on the basis of energy supply statistics.
It is based on the concept of apparent consumption: the production of primary fuels and imports of primary and secondary
fuels are added, and the exports of primary and secondary fuels, bunkers14 and stock change (which can be either positive
or negative). Given this result, CO2 emissions estimates are based on the carbon content of fuels.

For the Sectoral Approach, information on fuel consumption by energy sector is multiplied by the corresponding emission
factors. The calculation of CO2 emissions according to these two approaches can yield different results, but it is used for
quality control of the sector’s results.

For the Inventory in this BUR, differences above 5% were observed from 1990 to 1999, as shown in Table XV. The main
reasons for discrepancies are due to the statistical adjustments made in the Energy Balance and the values ​​considered
in the variation of oil stocks, i.e., adjustments made in primary sources that are not reflected in secondary fuels. These
findings are being investigated in order to improve the estimates in the next submissions.

TABLE XV: REFERENCE APPROACH VS. SECTORAL APPROACH IN THE ENERGY SECTOR

Reference Sectoral
Difference (%)
Year Approach (A) Approach (B)
((A-B/B))
(Gg CO2) (Gg CO2)
1990 174,294 162,431 7.3%
1991 180,109 168,246 7.1%
1992 183,738 171,880 6.9%
1993 189,959 177,436 7.1%
1994 205,524 185,663 10.7%
1995 212,864 201,319 5.7%
1996 231,512 216,775 6.8%
1997 245,608 230,492 6.6%
1998 254,650 239,222 6.4%
1999 262,751 250,096 5.1%
2000 263,630 256,319 2.9%
2001 275,794 264,559 4.2%
2002 270,801 262,362 3.2%
2003 259,947 256,730 1.3%
2004 277,428 271,775 2.1%
2005 283,132 277,143 2.2%
2006 286,847 283,203 1.3%
2007 299,437 296,034 1.1%
2008 317,998 314,236 1.2%
2009 303,551 297,934 1.9%
2010 340,512 333,669 2.1%
2011 353,836 349,252 1.3%
2012 384,690 381,786 0.8%
2013 418,113 413,171 1.2%
2014 449,397 436,996 2.8%
2015 416,516 413,035 0.8%
2016 382,166 382,504 -0.1%

14
Under the Sectoral Approach, emissions from international bunkers are calculated and reported as memo items, they are not computed
towards the country’s total (see item 1.3.1.2).

NATIONAL INVENTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCES AND REMOVAL BY 47

SINKS OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOT CONTROLLED BY THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL
3
MITIGATION
ACTIONS AND
THEIR EFFECTS
3 MITIGATION ACTIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS
This chapter presents detailed information about Brazil’s Nationally Appropriate Mitigation
Actions (NAMA) communicated to the UNFCCC via document FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/INF.1. The period
varies according to the initial year of each NAMA implementation, going up to 2020, whenever
possible. As required by the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC), all NAMAs are matched with
the government’s Sector Plans at the national level. The PNMC provides for actions in addition to the
NAMAs described in this report.

Brazil was one of the few developing countries to report a Nationally Determined Contribution
(NDC) to the Paris Agreement with a mitigation approach based on an absolute reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions for the economy as a whole. In addition, prior to 2020, the country steadily
and consistently implemented the NAMAs reported to the Convention as described below.

This set of actions contributes to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. This effort is
Brazil’s contribution to international endeavors to mitigate climate change.

The Table XVI: Mitigation actions below presents the Brazilian NAMAs according to the
guidelines established by Decision 2/CP-17, Annex III, and it includes: name, nature of the action,
sector, coordinating institution, gases, general objective, description, period, methodology and
assumptions, specific objective, goals, progress indicators, actions/steps taken, and results15. This
format was adopted when BUR3 was released, and it represents an evolution for the reporting of
Brazil’s actions based on national progress in monitoring the NAMAs and the lessons learned as part
of the international consultation and analysis process (ICA) of the previous BURs.

BOX III - ADDITIONAL EFFORTS

Since 2004 (in the case of the Amazon) and since 2010 (in the case of the Cerrado), the efforts made have shown meaningful
results in terms of reducing deforestation rates. Nevertheless, there has been an upward trend in deforestation in the
Amazon since 2012, which reflects a certain exhaustion of previous plans, with the need to develop more effective solutions
to prevent and counter illegal deforestation. In this context, considering the search for new solutions in addition to those
that had been performing well, in 2019 there was a transition to the new Plan for the Control of Illegal Deforestation and
Recovery of Native Vegetation, approved by the Commission for the Control of Illegal Deforestation and Recovery of Native
Vegetation – CONAVEG (Decree No. 10.142/2019).

The purpose of the new plan is to reduce illegal deforestation and degradation of native vegetation through positive
measures that impact on new dynamics and encourage sustainable production models as an alternative to the suppression
of native vegetation, thereby bringing together various segments of society to collaborate to fight illegal deforestation.

15
The estimated reductions informed herein are only indications in view of the difficulties in quantifying mitigation actions results in the country.
However, the actions/steps taken and the results reported, together with the recognition of gaps and capacity needs and efforts reported in
the section concerning SMMARE and MRV of actions, reflect the efforts that Brazil has been undertaking to quantify greenhouse gas emissions
reductions and transparency of this information.

MITIGATION ACTIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS

49
 The National Plan for the Control of Illegal Deforestation and Recovery of Native Vegetation provides guidelines for
combating deforestation based on three cross-cutting themes: business environment, innovation and technological
solutions, and financing for sustainable practices. In order to support coordination and integration of these themes, the
Plan was structured in 06 major axes: (i) zero tolerance to deforestation and firefighting, (ii) land tenure regularization, (iii)
territorial management, (iv) bio-economy, (v) payment for environmental services, and (vi) recovery of native vegetation.

In addition to strengthening existing institutional actions, the Plan is designed to create new solutions based on the
protection of standing forests and robust financial incentives for their conservation. As such, one of the Plan’s main
strategies is the compensation and appreciation of those who protect and derive their livelihoods from the forests. The
objective is to compensate those who carry out activities for the improvement, conservation and recovery of native
vegetation that contribute to the protection of biodiversity and soils, greater availability of water resources, reduction
of carbon emissions, among other environmental benefits, thereby creating jobs and income. The Plan is intended to
improve primary living conditions in the Amazon – one of the least developed regions in the country – by providing effective
health care, drinking water, sewage treatment, quality electricity, and digital inclusion.

These activities do not rely solely on the actions undertaken by the federal environmental authorities. In order to make
law enforcement actions more effective, coordination among the federal, state and municipal levels is necessary to ensure
concerted action in the fight against deforestation. In this context, the Ministry of the Environment has been playing a
coordinating role effectively. For instance, a clear achievement of this policy was the joint work for the establishment, in
2019, of an action to ensure law and order enforcement by the Armed Forces (“GLO Ambiental”), which allowed direct
action and allocation of resources to the agencies responsible for implementing policies to combat illegal deforestation.

As such, the National Program for Payment for Environmental Services – Floresta+ was also launched with the aim of
creating, promoting and consolidating the market for environmental services by recognizing and appreciating the
environmental activities conducted and encouraging the respective monetary and non-monetary compensation. The
Program focuses exclusively on native vegetation and can be applied to all land categories.

Other initiatives are already underway, such as the creation of an institutional framework for raising international funds
based on payments for REDD+ results (the UNFCCC recognized this year the reduction results for the Cerrado, which is the
first step for funding), forest carbon credits in the voluntary market, recognized by the Federal Government as an important
source of funding, in particular private funds. Other key initiatives include green debentures, impact investments, eco-
tourism, and private projects that may incorporate a component of payment for environmental services (PES) in their
design. Regulation of the market for environmental services will provide the necessary credibility for projects to have legal
certainty, thus ensuring their full development and contributing effectively and sustainably to reduce deforestation.

50 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

TABLE XVI: MITIGATION ACTIONS

Name: Sectoral Mitigation and Adaptation Plan to Climate Change for the Consolidation of a Low Carbon Emission
Economy in Agriculture (ABC Plan)

Nature of the action: NAMA

Sector: Agriculture

Coordinating Institution: Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA)

Gas (es): CH4, N2O, CO2

General Objective: to expand the area under sustainable agricultural production systems that ensure the sustainable
development of agriculture and reduce GHG emissions.

Description: Brazil has been investing in research and technology development for its agricultural sector’s sustainability
for the past five decades. In this context, the ABC Plan was established in 2010 as one of the government’s tools to promote
sustainable agricultural practices throughout the country. The ABC Plan encourages farmers to adopt a set of technologies
toward strengthening resilience and adaptive capacity, as well as increasing productivity and economic profitability of
national agricultural systems, with the integration of soil, water and biodiversity conservation and based on an Integrated
Landscape Approach (ILA). These technologies have contributed to increasing food production and, therefore, food safety,
while making production systems more resilient to climate change and more efficient in controlling GHG emissions related
to agricultural activities. According to the Forest Code, the ILA focuses on improving agricultural systems by fostering
technologies included in the ABC Plan, without the need to expand the lands currently allocated to agriculture and also
by reconciling with the environmental regularization of rural properties. The ABC Plan includes the implementation of the
following NAMAs:
• Restoration of degraded pasture;
• Integrated crop-livestock-forest systems and other modes of agroforestry systems;
• No-till farming;
• Biological nitrogen fixation;
• Along with other courses of action that strengthen the resilience of production systems, goals in the ABC Plan also
include actions to foster the expansion of planted forest areas, in support of the Steel Sector Plan, and expansion
of treatment facilities for animal waste with a view to reducing emissions from production activities. The additional
actions to the NAMAs are the result of the participatory construction of the ABC Plan, and the robust commitment
and ambition of the Brazilian agricultural sector given the potential to control its emissions. The expansion of
action goals in the ABC Plan is also due to the urgent need to strengthen resilience and the capacity to adapt to
climate change in order to counter the substantial threat to food security that the growing climate uncertainty has
generated.

Period: 2010-2019

Projected GHG reduction according to NAMAs:

• Restoration of pasture: 83 to 104 million tCO2e by 2020
• Integrated crop-livestock-forestry systems: 18 to 22 million tCO2e by 2020
• No-till farming: 16 to 20 million tCO2e by 2020
• Biological nitrogen fixation: 16 to 20 million tCO2e by 2020

MITIGATION ACTIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS 51

 Methodologies and assumptions:
The ABC Plan’s central assumption is that the control of GHG emissions inherent to agroecosystems can be achieved
through an Integrated Landscape Approach (ILA). The adoption of conservationist agriculture strategies and practices,
combined with the integration of production systems, makes it possible to boost the agroecosystems’ resilience and their
ability to adapt to external, thereby providing even more significant economic gains. These strategies encompass the
adequate management and conservation of soil, water, and biodiversity, duly compatible with the use of external inputs,
thus intensifying production.
Monitoring of the implementation of mitigation actions in the agricultural sector was based on a strategy that included:
1) Data collection:
• Analyses of satellite images where actions have been implemented;
• Information collected directly from the banking sector (contracts under the financing line established by the ABC
Plan);
• Census data from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), the National Supply Company (Conab)
and/or private companies;
• Field surveys or even surveys based on technical plans.
2) Data processing: centralized through the Multi-Institutional Platform of Climate Change and Agriculture (ABC Platform),
which involves experts from several institutions for information survey, analysis and validation. These experts are responsible
for explaining the reference scenario and establishing calculation methodologies used to account for reductions applicable
to the Brazilian ecological and technical conditions. Along with the data on the adoption of ABC technologies, there are
data for the decentralized promotion of actions via the coordination of the ABC Plan and the data on credit raising for the
adoption of technologies. This data set comprises the information required for monitoring the implementation of the ABC
Plan.

Specific Objective: Recovery of Degraded Pastures with an estimated contribution to a reduction of 83 to 104 million tCO2e
by 2020.
Goals: Recovery of 15 million hectares of degraded pastures.
Progress Indicators: Area (ha) of recovered pasture.

Specific Objective: Establishment of Crop-Livestock-Forest Integration Systems (CLFI) and Agroforestry Systems (AFS) with
an estimated contribution to a reduction of 18 to 22 million tCO2e by 2020
Goals: Expansion of the adoption of CLFI by 4 million hectares; Agroforestry Systems (AFS) by 2.76 million hectares.
Progress Indicators: Area (ha) implemented with CLFI and AFS.

Specific Objective: To increase the area cultivated under the no-till farming (NTF) system with an estimated contribution
to a reduction of 16 to 20 million tCO2e by 2020.
Goals: Expansion of the NTF system by 8 million hectares.
Progress Indicators: Area (ha) managed under the NTF system.

Specific Objective: To increase the area cultivated under the biological nitrogen fixation system with an estimated
contribution to a reduction of 10 million16 tCO2e by 2020.
Goals: To increase the adoption of BNF to 5.5 million hectares of cultivated areas, substituting nitrogen fertilizers.
Progress Indicators: Area (ha) cultivated with BNF and number of inoculant doses traded.

Specific Objective: To promote reforestation actions in the country, expanding the area covered with Planted Forests
currently used to produce fibers, wood and cellulose by 3.0 million hectares – from 6.0 million hectares to 9.0 million
hectares16
Goals: To increase plantation by 3.0 million hectares.
Progress Indicators: Area (ha) with planted forests.

Specific Objective: To broaden the use of treatment technologies for energy generation and production of organic
compost, with an estimated contribution to a reduction of 6.916 million tCO2e by 2020.
Goals: To broaden the use of technologies for the treatment of 4.4 million m3 of manure.
Progress Indicators:
• Volume of processed biogas;
• Volume of methane used for the generation of energy;
• Volume of electric power generated with the use of biogas;
• Tons of organic compost generated.

16
During the development stage of the ABC Plan, the estimated value of the potential expansion of BNF adoption was revised, and so were
the related emission reduction estimates. The reduction result for the agricultural sector was estimated through the relevant set of NAMAs;
however, it was remained unchanged, and the adjustment was offset by the addition of new courses of action. These include Animal Waste
Treatment, with an additional reduction estimated at 6.9 million tCO2e by 2020; the increase in the area with planted forests had no estimated
emission reduction potential since it is viewed as an action contributed to the Steel Sector Plan.

52 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

 Specific Objective: To encourage, motivate, and support the agricultural sector in implementing actions to adapt to climate
change.
Goals: To strengthen the agriculture sector’s capacity to adapt to climate change.
Progress Indicators:
• Number of actions for the adaption of plants and productive systems;
• Area (ha) with adaptation actions in the mapped regions.

Actions/Steps taken: The central action of the ABC Plan is to foster appropriation of information by rural producers so
as to encourage the implementation of sustainable production systems. The availability and accessibility of information,
confidence in the technology presented, and safety in the process lead the producer to invest in these changes. In addition
to private sector initiatives, actions directly taken by the federal government include:
• Over 3,400 capacity-building events;
• Over 42,600 technical workers trained on the technologies in the ABC Plan;
• Training of some 87 thousand producers all over the country;
• 966 Technological Reference Units (URTs) and/or Test and Demonstration Units (UTDs) in the several Brazilian
biomes;
• Over BRL 19.4 billion (over US$7.3 billion17) passed on contracts throughout the national territory through
an innovative credit line, focusing on the structuring of the sustainable production system and conservationist
agriculture proposed by the ABC Plan;
• Management and monitoring of 27 State Management Groups and their state ABC Plans, which establish goals
and actions in line with the environmental, cultural and institutional characteristics of each Brazilian federal State;
• Initiatives to raise awareness among the most diverse target audiences and dissemination of the ABC Plan in all
Units of the Federation;
• Studies were conducted to improve the process of monitoring and defining GHG emission and removal factors,
considering, in particular, the diversity of biomes and existing production systems in the country: 1. “Collection of
greenhouse gas emission and mitigation factors according to the Brazilian livestock production chains”; 2. “Collection of
greenhouse gas emission and mitigation factors according to the Brazilian agricultural production chains”; 3. Diagnosis
of degraded pasture areas and recovered pastures in the Brazilian territory; 4. Study and review information regarding
the adoption of technologies in the ABC Plan (CLFI, PF, and NTF); 5. Diagnosis of the adoption of Animal Waste Treatment
technology 6. “A collection of research studies, case studies, and experiences on production systems in the Brazilian
agriculture that demonstrate resilience and adaptive capacity to climate change”; 7. Application of the GHG Protocol
calculation tool and the AgroTag System in agricultural production systems, according to the technologies in the ABC
Plan; 8. Economic and financial evaluation of the technologies in the ABC Plan; 9. Proposition of a Conceptual Framework
for evaluating the progress of actions to adapt Brazilian production systems;
• Establishment of 26 scientific research programs that build on sustainability and add alternatives to the various
technological systems proposed;
• Management and equipment of the High-Resolution Phenotyping Laboratory, with a view to characterizing genetic
resources for different attributes, which is key for the identification of adaptable cultures to the diverse possible
climate conditions;
• Vulnerability analysis;
• Mapping of the main species cultivated according to their ability to adapt to climate projections;
• Development of research projects with integrated systems (CLFI and AFS) considering the mitigation of GHG
emissions in production systems and risk reduction through diversification of activities;
• Management of the Governance System of the ABC Plan (SIGABC) and the Multi-Institutional Platform for Monitoring
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction in Agriculture (ABC Platform);
• Creation of the Brazilian Agricultural Observatory under the MAPA with a view to consolidating national agricultural
data gathered from various agricultural databases in order to make it easier for managers to access the diversified
agricultural database produced by the Ministry; to make statistics more qualified and georeferenced; to make the
decision-making process more streamlined, and to prevent risky situations. The information available includes
satellite images and graphs showing economic, trade and national and regional production data.

The actions under the ABC Plan are implemented in line with other sectoral plans and government actions, in particular:
• Promoting forest planting for the supply of charcoal to steel mills;
• Promoting the adoption of agriculture-livestock-forest integration and agroforestry systems, the sustainable use of
areas already open, and the recovery of degraded areas for agricultural production contributing to the reduction of
deforestation and forest degradation;
• Contributing to increasing the diversification of renewable energy sources through the production of biomass and
the treatment of animal waste;
• Implementation of the Brazilian Forest Code: environmental registration of rural producers and recovery of the
environmental deficit of agricultural production properties.

17
BRL/USD commercial exchange rate (sale price) in December 2019.

MITIGATION ACTIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS 53

 Outcomes:
From 2010 to 2019, about 49.35 million hectares of production systems have incorporated sustainable
practices (see detailed results below). These technologies have been adopted countrywide, and those promoted
exclusively by the financing line established by the ABC Plan can be found in 2,949 (53%) Brazilian municipalities,
covering all Brazilian states, regions, and biomes. Detailed results:
• According to Manzatto et al. (2020) 18, the estimated results of the ABC Plan consider:
• According to data from the ABC Program, the Agriculture-Livestock-Forest Integration Network, the ABC
Platform and IBGE, from 2010 to 2016, the area of adoption of Agriculture-Livestock-Forest Integration
expanded by 5.83 million hectares.
• According to data from the Census of Agriculture (2006 and 2017), from 2010 to 2016, the area of
adoption of No-Tillage systems increased by 12.72 million hectares and the area of adoption of Biological
Fixation of Nitrogen (BFN) expanded by 10.54 million hectares (No-Tillage areas overlap with BFN).
• According to data from the Brazilian Tree Institute (IBA), from 2010 to 2018, the area of forests planted
for commercial purposes expanded by 7.84 million hectares.
• The recovered pasture area was estimated at 10.45 million hectares in 2010-2017, considering statistical
databases that assume average animal units per area. New studies have made it possible to improve the
methodology, including the use of remote sensing and image analysis. These studies indicate that the
degraded pasture area recovered in 2010-2018 now exceeds 20 million hectares.
• According to calculations from a study commissioned by MAPA19, from 2010 to 2019, 341 new animal
waste treatment facilities were established, and they process an estimated treatment of 38.34 million
m3 of animal waste.

Name: Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm)20

Nature of the action: NAMA

Sector: Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF)

Coordinating Institution: Ministry of the Environment

Gas (es): CO2e

General Objective: Launched in 2004, it aims at reducing deforestation and degradation of native vegetation by promoting
the maintenance of ecosystem services through the sustainable use of forest resources and promotion of sustainable
agricultural practices.

Description: The fourth implementation stage of the PPCDAm covers the period 2016-2020. This Plan encompasses
several policies and actions from the Federal Government and is structured in nine specific objectives distributed into
four thematic axes: i) environmental monitoring and control; ii) land tenure regularization and territorial management, iii)
fostering sustainable productive activities, and iv) normative and economic instruments.

As one of the instruments of National Policy on Climate Change (Law No. 12,187), PPCDAM aims at reducing deforestation.
The specific objectives described herein were developed by the Federal Government as a whole when drafting the PPCDAm,
not only by the Ministry of the Environment, thus showing that deforestation is a challenge beyond the environmental
agenda. Like the PPCerrado, many of its actions are cross-sector in nature.

Period: 2004-2019

Estimated reduction related to the NAMA: 564 million tCO2e by 2020

18
http://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/214365/1/Manzatto-mitigacao-emissoes-2020.pdf
19
https://mapa.cibiogas.org/
Because the strategy to reduce deforestation is structured by biomes, some results accounted for under the PPCDAm have national impact
20

and are therefore reported both here and in the section on PPCerrado.

54 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Specific Objective: To promote land tenure regularization of public lands in the states in the Legal Amazon
Methodologies and assumptions: The significant portion of public land not yet allocated or tenured was identified as a
critical cause of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.

Goal: 10 million hectares of federal public lands allocated

Progress Indicators: Public federal area effectively allocated (ha).
Actions/Steps taken: The Federal Government, by means of the Legal Tenure Program (PTL for its acronym in Portuguese),
has been working since 2009 to promote the tenure of federal public lands. Priority was initially accorded to titling land
possessed in these areas. Over time, the initial stage of land allocation also met a series of other highly relevant demands
in combating deforestation, such as acknowledging indigenous lands and making areas available for the establishment of
conservation areas, among others. The strategic nature of land tenure regularization under the PPCDAm was consolidated
during its second stage (2009-2011). Actions were scaled up and accelerated with the creation of the Technical Chamber for
the Allocation and Land Tenure Regularization of Federal Rural Public Land in the Legal Amazon in 2013. Since then, over
11 million hectares have been allocated, out of which 7.5 million are protected areas.
Outcomes: 100% of the 60 million hectares of federal public land without allocation or clear land tenure (baseline 2013)
have been analyzed by the Technical Chamber, with 47.8 million hectares already processed, i.e., clearly allocated or
tenured without overlapping interests between the federal agencies.

Goal: To promote the implementation of the Legal Tenure Program.

Progress Indicators: Number of land tenure titles issued
Actions/Steps taken: Issuance of titles for land tenure regularization regarding public lands. Decrees and rules on land
tenure regularization procedures have been enacted, including the issuance of an Occupancy Recognition Certificate (CRO
for its acronym in Portuguese) that guarantees access to rural credit facilities by the occupants (Decree No. 9,309/2018 and
Decree No. 10,165/2019). Creation of A CRO module in the Land Management System (SIGEF)
Outcomes: By 2019, over 31,600 land tenure titles had been issued by the Federal Government.

Specific Objective: To promote land-use planning, strengthening protected areas.

Methodologies and assumptions: The expansion of protected areas reduces deforestation and protects biodiversity.

Goal: 30% of the Amazon biome under protected areas.

Progress Indicators: Percentage of the biome protected within conservation units.
Actions/Steps taken: Establishment and expansion of conservation units in priority areas for biodiversity conservation;
In 2018, the Baixo Rio Branco Extractive Reserve - Jauaperi (581,120 ha) and the Itapetininga Extractive Reserve (16,294 ha)
were created. The Lago Cuniã Extractive Reserve has been extended to a total of 75,875 ha.
Outcomes: 28.1% of the Amazon biome protected by Federal, State, and Municipal conservation units, thereby reaching
93.6% of the goal.

Goal: To speed up the acknowledgement of indigenous lands in areas under greater deforestation pressure.
Progress Indicators: Indigenous lands area (ha) listed in declaratory rulings of the Justice Ministry.
Actions/Steps taken: Granting full property rights to indigenous peoples, acknowledging their lands.
Outcomes: Declaratory rulings for approximately 2.1 million hectares of indigenous land in 2016 (Kaxuyana/Tunayana
Indigenous Land)

Specific Objective: To promote accountability for environmental crimes and infractions.

Methodologies and assumptions: Increased accountability for environmental crimes and infractions acts as a deterrence
mechanism since offenders will fear punished for environmental offenses. The penalty can be in the form of a fine,
administrative infraction, or even a criminal sentence.

Goal: To reduce deforestation in the biome and conservation units

Progress Indicator: Deforested area (km²)
Actions/Steps taken: Surveillance of critical deforestation areas, including conservation units:
The following actions were implemented in 2018-2019:
• 434 flora surveillance actions;
• 11,501 notices of infraction issued;
• Over 1 million hectares of embargoed areas;
• 2222 criminal procedures launched;
• 462 surveillance actions conducted in conservation units.
Outcomes:
• In 2019, there was a 63.5% decrease in annual deforested areas in the Legal Amazon in relation to 2004.
• In 2019, there was a 58.9% decrease in deforested areas inside conservation units compared to 2004.

MITIGATION ACTIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS 55

 Specific Objective: Effectively implement joint forest management.
Methodologies and assumptions: Environmental and forest management in Brazil is, to a great extent, a responsibility
of the States. The Federal Government’s role is to unify and make national data on forest and environmental management
available, such as is the case of the National System of the Rural Environmental Registry (Sicar) and the National System
for the Control of the Origin of Forest Products (Sinaflor), which are fundamental systems for monitoring and controlling
deforestation. The Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) is a system for tracking legally protected areas within rural properties,
thus allowing for monitoring and a distinction between legal (authorized) and illegal deforestation. Sinaflor is a monitoring
system for tracking the transportation of native wood products.

Goals: To implement the National System for the Control of the Origin of Forest Products (Sinaflor).
Progress Indicators: Number of States integrated into Sinaflor.
Actions/Steps taken: Promotion of the integration and interoperability of States’ forest-control systems with the National
System.
Outcomes: Implementation of Sinaflor in seven of the nine States in the Legal Amazon region (Roraima, Amazonas, Amapá,
Rondônia, Acre, Tocantins and Maranhão).

Goals: To register 100% of rural properties in Brazil in the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR).
Progress Indicators: Index of environmental regularity of rural properties (number or area of rural properties in
regularization/total real estate).
Actions/Steps taken: Improvement and availability of the modules for analysis and monitoring of the CAR
• Provision and implementation of improvements in the SICAR analysis module for all states using the platform;
• Support for the preparation and submission of simplified proposals for joining the PRA in the 21 states using the
SICAR;
• Deployment of the Environmental Reserve Quota regulation (Decree No. 9,640/2018);
• Capacity building actions for the development of simplified proposals for joining the PRA and fostering the recovery
of native vegetation in Permanent Preservation Areas – APP and Legal Reserves – RL;
• Integration of systems and platforms with SICAR data, namely SICOR, SINAFLOR, and SIGEF.
Outcomes: 100% (5.5 million) of rural properties and 548,4 million hectares of rural properties registered (at the national
level). *Registers are self-declaratory and will go through a validation phase by the relevant state bodies.

Specific Objective: To prevent and combat the incidence of forest fires.

Methodologies and assumptions: The incidence of forest fires in Brazilian biomes results in vegetation degradation and
GHG emissions. Understanding the dynamics of fires in Brazilian biomes helps inform policies to reduce degradation and
promote conservation through integrated fire management. Federal environmental agencies currently adopt an integrated
fire management approach to reduce forest fires that are harmful to biodiversity.

Goals: To reduce the area affected by forest fires.

Progress Indicators: Burned area (ha); number of heat spots.
Actions/Steps taken:
• Regulation of Art. 40 of Law No. 12,651/2012 Elaboration and submission of the Draft Law No. 11,276/2018,
which establishes the National Integrated Fire Management Policy. This policy is under review in the House of
Representatives as a priority;
• Elaboration of Forest Fire Prevention and Combat Plans in conservation units;
• Prevention and combat action planning in priority conservation units;
• Implementation of the Federal Forest Brigade Program, aiming at reducing the number of forest fires in priority
federal areas;
• In 2019, 471 firefighters were hired to cover 30 priority areas (indigenous lands and settlements) and 221 firefighters
to cover 25 conservation units. Integrated fire management was implemented in 59 conservation units;
• The 7th International Conference on Forest Fires was held from October 28 to November 1, 2019, in Campo Grande,
MS. Under the central theme “Face to face with fire in a changing world: reducing the vulnerability of populations and
ecosystems through Integrated Fire Management,” the conference brought together more than 1,200 attendees,
including government managers and officials, firefighters, researchers, civil society, and the private sector from
nearly all states in Brazil and 37 other countries from five continents;
• Also, in 2019, the Law and Order Assurance operation was carried out, which ensured preventive and enforcement
actions by the Armed Forces against environmental offenses and the identification and fight against fire outbreaks.
A decree placing a ban on the use of fire for sixty days throughout the national territory was also enacted (Decree
No. 9,992, of August 28, 2019, amended by Decree No. 9,997, of August 30, 2019).
Outcomes:
• 218.637 heat spots were reported in the Amazon in 2004. In 2019, there were 89,178 heat spots. There was a
reduction of 59.2% in relation to 2004;
• The burned area in the Amazon in 2004 affected 157.007 km². In 2019, this was 72,501km². There was a reduction
of 53.8% in relation to 2004.

56 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Specific Objective: To improve and strengthen the monitoring of vegetation cover.
Methodologies and assumptions: The real-time deforestation detection system is the main tool used by the environmental
surveillance to control deforestation, being improved every year by INPE and Censipam. It is the system that provides
daily data to federal environmental agencies to inform law enforcement actions. In addition to the optical sensors, the
detection of deforestation is also being carried out in periods of high cloud cover incidence in the Amazon with the use of
radar images. In addition to deforestation, INPE monitors and measures the heat sources and burned areas in all biomes,
providing essential information to implement policies to reduce forest fires and integrated fire management, especially for
environmental conservation within protected areas.

Goals: To improve the deforestation alert system.

Progress Indicators:
Image area worked on per month in the Deter systems (in spatial resolutions of 250m, 60m, and 30m);
Deforestation Alert Index/Image area worked (in spatial resolution between 3 and 6m).
Actions/Steps taken: Implementation of improvements in the area monitored in the Amazon.
Outcomes:
• Systems are fully operational, with INPE’s TerraBrasilis platform available online;
• Images already available for federal environmental surveillance;
• Deter/Inpe – Image area worked: in 2017, the monthly average was 3.08; in 2018, it jumped to 4.13; and in 2019, it
stood at 4.17 million Km²/month;
• SIPAM/SAR - In 2018, radar monitoring was conducted based on telemetry data, image consumption covered
1,684,303.76 km². In 2019, monitoring involved an orbital and aerial radar, with image consumption covering
2,521,411 km².

Goals: Annual mapping of the burned area in all Brazilian biomes.

Progress Indicators: Monitored area (ha) and digital maps of the burned area (in spatial resolution of 30m and 1km).
Actions/Steps taken:
• Implementation of the annual estimation system of burned area with a spatial resolution of 30 meters and 1km
• Improvement of near-real-time monitoring of vegetation fire outbreaks
Outcomes: Satellite monitoring of vegetation fire outbreaks by INPE’s Programa Queimada for all biomes was carried out
in low spatial resolution images (1km), with the automatic generation of daily, monthly and annual summaries in the form
of maps, charts, and tables, in addition to spot locations of burning

Specific Objective: To promote sustainable forest management.

Methodologies and assumptions: Fostering the development of a forest economy in the Amazon is crucial for the
conservation of the forest and the valuation of its environmental assets. Sustainable use of the forest can extract high-
value wood and non-timber products while also conserving the forest and promoting the local and regional forest economy,
creating employment opportunities and income.

Goals: To increase the volume of marketed timber, non-timber and socio-biodiversity products from Sustainable Forest
Management areas.
Progress Indicators: Volume of timber production, non-timber and socio-biodiversity products for trading (t, m³ or other)
from areas under sustainable management plans.
Actions/Steps taken:
• Promotion of forest concessions;
• Insert new socio-biodiversity products in the Policy for Guaranteeing a Minimum Price for Biodiversity Products –
PGPM-Bio;
• Strengthening of extractive activities (Implementation of the National Plan to Strengthen Extractive and Riparian
Communities);
• Promoting Community Forest Management and the strengthening of the management of community undertakings.
Outcomes:
• In 2019, the accumulated area of forest
​​ under forest concession reached 1,050,000 ha.
• In 2019, wood production through the federal forest concessions was 250,000m³; in 2018, it was 204,000m³.
• Design and commercialization of socio-biodiversity products: inclusion of management of pirarucu in the PGPM-
Bio agenda for the 2020 season; subsidy of 19,000 tons of socio-biodiversity products, with BRL 18.7 million paid
to 9,309 extractive producers who sold açaí, andiroba, babassu, natural extractive rubber, native cocoa, juçara,
macabá, mangaba, pequi, pinhão, and umbu (various regions).

MITIGATION ACTIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS 57

 Specific Objective: To implement economic instruments to control illegal deforestation.
Methodologies and assumptions: Decreasing deforestation and forest degradation also relies on positive incentives. The
thematic area of economic and normative instruments consists of an array of Federal Government initiatives to design
and implement incentives-based mechanisms to encourage sustainable production, whether through incentives for the
adoption of sustainable production technologies and systems or amendments or financial, credit, and tax instruments.
Goals: To enhance the positive incentives to reduce illegal deforestation and foster new production models and sustainable
use of the forest.
Progress Indicators: Resource flows to forest conservation.
Actions/Steps taken:
• Increased access to credit for sustainable forest management activities (business, small holders, and community),
regularization, and environmental recovery;
• Establishment of progressive credit goal agreements with federal public financial institutions for the sustainable
production sector;
• Study and design credit incentives for private rural properties in compliance with the Forest Code, including the
extension of the credit limit, without further restrictions and with the monitoring guarantee;
• Foster credit access for community forest management;
• Foster the integration of information systems (SICOR/Bacen, CAR and embargoed areas) to support the verification
of environmental compliance in financing contracts;
• Establish socio-environmental progressive application criteria within the scope of credit concessions targeting large
forest products consumer chains;
• Proposition of preference criteria for certificate timber or timber from forest concessions and for socio-biodiversity
products in public contracts and purchases of federal, state, and municipal governments;
• Expansion of access channels to public purchasing mechanisms through collaborative instruments to socio-
biodiversity and agro-ecology products;
• Incentivize socio-biodiversity products through tax breaks and differentiated minimum prices;
• Foster the establishment of the Environmental Reserve Quota regulation (CRA for its acronym in Portuguese);
• Diagnosis of standards and procedures related to issuing authorizations and environmental licensing of sustainable
forest management activities. The objective is evaluating its efficiency, the need for harmonization and integration
of processes, bridging normative gaps, and distinguishing forest management activities by type (community,
business, and smallholders);
• Design and implementation of a Sectoral Pact for the Meat Supply Chain.
Outcomes:
• Enactment of Decree No. 9,640, of December 27, 2018, which regulates the Environmental Reserve Quota;
• Enactment of Decree No. 9,760, of April 11, 2019, which establishes new rules for the conversion of fines and
establishment of Ibama’s Environmental Conciliation Centers;
• Preparation and approval of the pilot project for payments for environmental services Floresta+, with resources
from REDD+ results, in a total of US$ 96 million;
• Cross-sector coordination to change the 2018/2019 Season Plan, which made it possible to finance environmental
recovery under the funding and Investment modalities, expansion of financing limits for the recovery of
environmentally weak areas in rural properties and reduction of interest rates compared to other facilities.
Additionally, the ABC Program, through its environmental subprogram (ABC Ambiental), which allows for financing
for the adaptation or regularization of rural properties in light of environmental legislation (recovery of the legal
reserve and permanent preservation areas, recovery of degraded production areas, and implementation and
improvement of sustainable forest management plans) has been a highlight, since the 2018/2019 season, as the
credit facility involving the lowest financial charges among the official investment programs, with an interest rate
of 5.25% pa;
• Design and commercialization of socio-biodiversity products: inclusion of management of pirarucu in the PGPM-
Bio agenda for the 2020 season; subsidy of 19,000 tons of socio-biodiversity products, with BRL 18.7 million paid
to 9,309 extractive producers who sold açaí, andiroba, babassu, natural extractive rubber, native cocoa, juçara,
macabá, mangaba, pequi, pinhão, and umbu;
• Amazon Fund: 103 projects supported, totaling BRL 1 billion and BRL 860 million.

58 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

 Name: Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation and Forest Fires in the Cerrado biome21

Nature of the action: NAMA

Sector: Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF)

Coordinating Institution: Ministry of the Environment

Gas (es): CO2e

General Objective: PPCerrado aims at reducing deforestation and the degradation of native vegetation by promoting
the maintenance of ecosystem services through the sustainable use of forest resources and the promotion of sustainable
agricultural systems. The specific objectives for this NAMA were developed by the Government when drafting the PPCerrado,
and not only by the Ministry of the Environment, thus showing that deforestation is a challenge beyond the environmental
agenda. Like the PPCDAm, many of its actions are at the national level. Because the strategy to reduce deforestation is
structured by biomes, some results accounted for under the PPCDAm have national impact and are therefore reported
both here and in the section on PPCDAm.
Description: Launched in 2010, the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation and Fires in the Cerrado biome
(PPCerrado) was established as one of the main instruments of the National Policy on Climate Change (Law No. 12,187). The
Plan is in its 3rd implementation stage (from 2016 to 2020). PPCerrado encompasses several Federal Government policies
and actions and is structured in nine specific objectives distributed into four thematic axes: i) environmental monitoring
and control; ii) land tenure regularization and territorial management, iii) incentives for sustainable production activities,
and iv) normative and economic instruments.

Period: 2010-2019

Estimated reduction related to the NAMA: 104 million tCO2e by 2020

Specific Objective: To promote land-use planning, strengthening protected areas.

Methodologies and assumptions: The expansion of protected areas reduces deforestation and protects biodiversity.
Goals: 17% of the Cerrado in protected areas as conservation units.
Progress Indicators: Percentage of the biome protected within conservation units.
Actions/Steps taken: Establishment of seven (07) Private Natural Heritage Reserves (RPPN for its acronym in Portuguese)
covering a total area of 110.51
​​ ha
Outcomes: 8.3% of the biome protected by Federal, State, and Municipal conservation units

Specific Objective: To promote accountability for environmental crimes and infractions.

Methodologies and assumptions: Increased accountability for environmental crimes and infractions acts as a deterrence
mechanism since offenders will fear punished for environmental offenses. The penalty can be in the form of a fine,
administrative infraction, or even a criminal sentence.
Goals: To reduce deforestation in the biome and conservation units
Progress Indicators: Deforested area (km²)
Actions/Steps taken: Surveillance of critical deforestation areas, including conservation units:
• The following actions were implemented in 2018-2019:
• 141 flora surveillance actions;
• 2,055 notices of infraction issued;
• Over 95 thousand hectares of embargoed areas;
• 2080 criminal procedures launched;
• 115 surveillance actions conducted in conservation units.
Outcomes:
• In 2019, there was a reduction in annual deforested areas in the Cerrado in relation to 2010. The deforestation rates
for 2018 and 2019 were the lowest in the historical time series for the Cerrado.
• In 2018, the deforested area within federal conservation units covered 70 km². Annual deforested areas had a
53.6% reduction in relation to 2010.

21
The Cerrado is the second largest biome in South America, occupying an area of 2,036,448 km2, about 22% of the national territory. Its
continuous area encompasses the states of Goiás, Tocantins, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Bahia, Maranhão, Piauí, Rondônia,
Paraná, São Paulo, and Distrito Federal, and also encraves in the states of Amapá, Roraima, and Amazonas.

MITIGATION ACTIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS 59

 Specific Objective: Effectively implement joint forest management.
Methodologies and assumptions: Environmental and forest management in Brazil is, to a great extent, a responsibility
of the States. The Federal Government’s role is to unify and make national data on forest and environmental management
available, such as is the case of the National System of the Rural Environmental Registry (Sicar) and the National System
for the Control of the Origin of Forest Products (Sinaflor), which are fundamental systems for monitoring and controlling
deforestation. The Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) is an instrument for tracking rural properties and their legally
protected areas, thus allowing for monitoring and a distinction between legal (authorized) and illegal deforestation. Sinaflor
is a monitoring system for tracking the transportation of native wood products.

Goals: To effectively implement the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR)

Progress Indicators: Index of environmental regularity of rural properties (number or area of rural properties in
regularization/total real estate).
Actions/Steps taken:
• Provision and implementation of improvements in the SICAR analysis module for all states that use the platform;
• Support for the preparation and submission of simplified proposals for joining the PRA in the 21 states that chose
to use the SICAR;
• Deployment of the Environmental Reserve Quota regulation (Decree No. 9,640/2018);
• Capacity building actions for the development of simplified proposals for joining the PRA and fostering the recovery
of native vegetation in Permanent Preservation Areas – APP and Legal Reserves – RL;
• Integration of systems and platforms with SICAR data, namely SICOR, SINAFLOR, and SIGEF.
Outcomes: 100% (5.5 million) of rural properties and 548,4 million hectares of rural properties registered (at the national
level). *Registers are self-declaratory and will go through a validation phase by the relevant state bodies.

Goals: To implement the National System for the Control of the Origin of Forest Products (Sinaflor).
Progress Indicators: Number of States integrated into Sinaflor.
Actions/Steps taken: Promotion of the integration and interoperability of States’ forest-control systems with the National
System
Outcomes: Deployment of Sinaflor in 10 out of the 11 states with Cerrado vegetation.

Specific Objective: To prevent and combat the incidence of forest fires.

Methodologies and assumptions: Understanding the dynamics of fires in Brazilian biomes helps inform the decision-
making process and implementation of policies to reduce degradation and promote conservation through integrated
fire management, which is particularly important for the Cerrado. Federal environmental agencies currently adopt an
integrated fire management approach in order to reduce forest fires that are harmful to biodiversity.
Goals: To reduce the area affected by forest fires.
Progress Indicators: Burned area (ha), number of heat spots
Actions/Steps taken:
• Regulation of Art. 40 of Law No. 12,651/2012 Elaboration and submission of the Draft Law No. 11,276/2018, which
establishes the National Integrated Fire Management Policy. This is under review in the House of Representatives
as a priority;
• Elaboration of Forest Fire Prevention and Combat Plans in conservation units;
• Prevention and combat action planning in priority conservation units;
• Implementation of the Federal Forest Brigade Programme, aiming at reducing the number of forest fires in priority
federal areas;
• In 2019, 745 firefighters were hired to cover 40 priority areas (indigenous lands and settlements) and 459 firefighters
to cover 24 conservation units. Integrated fire management was implemented in 36 conservation units;
• The 7th International Conference on Forest Fires was held from October 28 to November 1, 2019, in Campo Grande,
MS. Under the central theme “Face to face with fire in a changing world: reducing the vulnerability of populations and
ecosystems through Integrated Fire Management,” the conference brought together more than 1,200 attendees,
including government managers and officials, firefighters, researchers, civil society, and the private sector from
nearly all states in Brazil and 37 other countries from five continents;
• Also, in 2019, a decree placing a ban on the use of fire for sixty days throughout the national territory was enacted
(Decree No. 9,992, of August 28, 2019, amended by Decree No. 9,997, of August 30, 2019).
Outcomes:
• In 2010, 133,394 heat spots were reported in the Amazon; in 2019, 63,874 heat spots were reported. A 52%
reduction in relation to 2010;
• In 2010, the burned area in the Cerrado covered 304,825 km²; in 2019, the burned area affected 148,648 km². A 51%
reduction in relation to 2010.

60 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Specific Objective: To improve and strengthen the monitoring of vegetation cover.
Methodologies and assumptions: The real-time deforestation detection system is the main tool used by the environmental
surveillance to control deforestation, being improved every year by INPE and providing daily data to federal environmental
agencies. In addition to the detection system, it is important to emphasize the national effort to map vegetation cover
annually, given its high relevance for the measurement of the goals and impacts for the policies to reduce deforestation.
Goals: Development of an alert system (Deter) for the Cerrado.
Progress Indicators: Image area effectively worked on a monthly basis in the DETER system in the Cerrado.
Actions/Steps taken:
Implementation of a real-time deforestation detection system (Deter-B and C).
Outcomes: Detection is fully operational; data are being sent to enforcement bodies and are publicly available. So far,
effectively worked image area indicators have not been made available.

Goals: Mapping of annual deforestation in the Cerrado.

Progress Indicators: Deforestation mapping in the Cerrado by types of physiognomies in the period 2000-2018.
Actions/Steps taken: Construction of the historical series of deforestation in the Cerrado and mapping phytophysiognomies
in the period 2000-2019.
Outcomes: Publication of the historical series of deforestation in the Cerrado, from 2001 to 2019.

Goals: Annual mapping of the burned area in all Brazilian biomes.

Progress Indicators: Monitored area (ha) and digital maps of burned area (in spatial resolution of 30m and 1km).
Actions/Steps taken:
• Implementation of the annual estimation system of burned area with a spatial resolution of 30 meters and 1km;
• Improved monitoring of near-real-time vegetation fire outbreaks with satellites.
Outcomes: Satellite monitoring of vegetation fire outbreaks by INPE’s Programa Queimada for all biomes was carried out
in low spatial resolution images (1km), with the automatic generation of daily, monthly and annual summaries in the form
of maps, charts, and tables, in addition to spot locations of burning.

Specific Objective: To promote sustainable forest management.

Methodologies and assumptions: Fostering the development of a forest economy is crucial for the conservation of the
biome and valuation of its environmental assets. Sustainable use of the forest can extract high-value products while also
conserving biodiversity and promoting the local and regional forest economy, creating employment opportunities and
income.
Goals: To increase the volume of marketed non-timber and socio-biodiversity products.
Progress Indicators: Volume of production for trading (t, m³ or other).
Actions/Steps taken:
• Include new socio-biodiversity products in the Policy for Guaranteeing a Minimum Price (PGPM-Bio);
• Strengthening extractive activity.
Outcomes: Design and commercialization of socio-biodiversity products: inclusion of management of pirarucu in the
PGPM-Bio agenda for the 2020 season; subsidy of 19,000 tons of socio-biodiversity products, with BRL 18.7 million paid
to 9,309 extractive producers who sold açaí, andiroba, babassu, natural extractive rubber, native cocoa, juçara, macabá,
mangaba, pequi, pinhão, and umbu (various regions).

MITIGATION ACTIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS 61

 Specific Objective: To implement normative and economic instruments to control illegal deforestation.
Methodologies and assumptions: The thematic area of economic and normative instruments consists of an array of Federal
Government initiatives to design and implement incentives-based mechanisms to encourage sustainable production,
whether through incentives for the adoption of sustainable production technologies and systems or amendments or
financial, credit, and tax instruments.
Goals: To enhance positive incentives to reduce deforestation and encourage new production models and the sustainable
use of native vegetation
Progress Indicators: Normative actions adopted and resource flows for positive incentives for conservation in R$ and US$.
Actions/Steps taken:
• Increased access to credit for sustainable forest management activities (business, small holders, and community),
regularization, and environmental recovery;
• Establishment of progressive credit goal agreements with federal public financial institutions for the sustainable
production sector;
• Study and design credit incentives for private rural properties in compliance with the Forest Code, including the
extension of the credit limit, without further restrictions and with the monitoring guarantee;
• Foster the integration of information systems (SICOR/Bacen, CAR and embargoed areas) to support the verification
of environmental compliance in financing contracts;
• Foster the establishment of the Environmental Reserve Quota regulation (CRA for its acronym in Portuguese);
• Diagnosis of standards and procedures related to issuing authorizations and environmental licensing of sustainable
forest management activities. The objective is evaluating its efficiency, the need for harmonization and integration
of processes, bridging normative gaps and distinguishing forest management activities by type (community,
business, and smallholders);
• Design and implementation of a Sectoral Pact for the Meat Supply Chain;
• Promotion of the sectoral agreement involving the business sector, government, and civil society in order to achieve
the goal of reducing deforestation in the Cerrado.
Outcomes:
• Enactment of Decree No. 9,640, of December 27, 2018, which regulates the Environmental Reserve Quota;
• Enactment of Decree No. 9,760, of April 11, 2019, which establishes new rules for the conversion of fines and
establishment of Ibama’s Environmental Conciliation Centers;
• Preparation and approval of the pilot project for payments for environmental services Floresta+, with resources
from REDD+ results, in a total of US 96 million;
• Cross-sector coordination to change the 2018/2019 Season Plan, which made it possible to finance environmental
recovery under the funding and Investment modalities, expansion of financing limits for the recovery of
environmentally weak areas in rural properties and reduction of interest rates compared to other facilities.
Additionally, the ABC Program, through its environmental subprogram, which allows for financing the adaptation or
regularization of rural properties in light of environmental legislation (recovery of the legal reserve and permanent
preservation areas, recovery of degraded production areas, and implementation and improvement of sustainable
forest management plans) has been a highlight, since the 2018/2019 season, as the credit facility involving the
lowest financial charges among the official investment programs, with an interest rate of 5.25% pa.

Name: Sustainable Steel Industry Plan

Nature of the action: NAMA

Sector: Industrial processes; Energy

Coordinating Institution: Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of the Economy

Gas (es): CO2e

General Objective: To promote sustainable production of charcoal used as an input in the production of pig iron, steel,
and ferroalloys.
Description: The Sustainable Steel Industry Plan seeks to promote the sustainable production of charcoal used as an input
in the production of pig iron, steel and ferroalloys, aiming at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing the sector’s
competitiveness. The Plan, launched in 2010, is in its second phase of implementation (2016-2020), structured in forest
preservation and reforestation components, as well as industrial and technological components for increasing efficiency
in the carbonization process. The Plan fosters the development of solutions for the adequate supply of sustainable raw
material by encouraging the use of wood from planted forests and the development and diffusion of more effective charcoal
production technologies that increase the efficiency in the conversion of wood to charcoal, with improved environmental
quality and reduced GHG emissions.

Period: 2010 - 2019. BUR4 will focus on the 2016-2019 period. Information on the 2010-2016 period is available in BUR1 and BUR2.

Estimated reduction related to the NAMA: 8 to 10 million tCO2e by 2020

62 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Specific Objective: The reduction in GHG emissions in the steel industry will be achieved through the following actions:
• Use of planted forests instead of native forests.
• Reduction in emissions from the wood carbonization process.
• Increased use of sustainable charcoal in the pig iron, steel and ferroalloy production sectors, in the context of a low
carbon circular economy.
Methodologies and assumptions: GHG emissions may be reduced by replacing sourcing from native forest with sourcing
from sustainably-planted forest and updating replacing existing carbonization process for more efficient charcoal-producing
technologies. The charcoal sustainably sourced is then used in metallurgical processes for the production of pig iron, steel
and ferroalloys, which account for about 95% of the total charcoal consumption of in Brazil.
Goals:
• To increase the incentive to technological innovations and the adoption of more efficient and sustainable production
processes to convert wood to charcoal.
• To establish an MRV system platform to monitor the emission reductions of projects implemented
Progress Indicators:
• Number of contracts signed;
• Payments made for the achievement of greenhouse gas emissions reduction;
• Status of the MRV platform;
• Number of Demonstrative Units created;
• Training and capacity building conducted and support material produced.
Methodologies and assumptions: Processes and instruments whose design and implementation will directly or indirectly
contribute to reducing GHG emissions by replacing sourcing from native forests with sourcing from sustainably-planted
forest, and updating replacing existing carbonization processes with more efficient charcoal-producing technologies. The
charcoal sustainably sourced is then used in metallurgical processes for the production of pig iron, steel and ferroalloys,
which account for about 95% of the total charcoal consumption in Brazil.
Actions/Steps taken:
In 2016, the pilot project BRA/14/G31 (Sustainable Steel Industry) was initiated, coordinated by the Ministry of the
Environment (MMA) and implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The following institutions
are members of the Project Monitoring Committee (CAP for its acronym in Portuguese): Ministry of the Economy (ME),
Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovations (MCTI), Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA), and
the Government of the State of Minas Gerais. This project aims at deploying more efficient technologies in existing
carbonization processes through a financial incentive mechanism for results-based payments, as well as the establishment
of public policies to encourage forest sustainability in the sector. The project is initially focused on the State of Minas Gerais,
which houses around 80% of the country’s charcoal production, with a projected horizon initially up to the first half of 2020,
but it has been extended to the first half of 2021.

Six projects within the results-based payment mechanism were hired through a public bidding process. An MRV Platform
has been designed to monitor these activities’ progress, assisting in the development of estimates for the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions. Four Demonstration Units (Zona da Mata, Northeast of Minas Gerais, Montes Claros, and Sete
Lagoas) were installed for smallholder charcoal producers, which will serve as a basis for the training program.

Consultancy studies were concluded and will be the basis for public policies towards forest sustainability in the sector,
as well as a starting point for the ongoing elaboration of the sustainability strategy for the Brazilian pig iron, steel and
ferroalloys sector.
For the second phase of the project, which will run until 2021, expansion of the project support to small and medium
charcoal producers was planned, with a view to promoting greater reach and providing gains of scale in more efficient
technologies for the Brazilian steel sector.

Outcomes:
• 6 signed and ongoing charcoal producer support contracts at the industrial level, with the adoption of the Payment by
Results mechanism for charcoal production with the use of more efficient and sustainable production technologies;
• An independent audit hired to verify the results of greenhouse gas emission reduction results by the supported
businesses;
• Initial payments made for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions achieved; MRV system platform fully
developed to monitor emission reductions from the implemented projects;
• Selection of the Modular Program for Verifying the Origin of Charcoal (PROMOVE for its acronym in Portuguese) to
monitor socio-environmental indicators in the production of charcoal and its use in the steel industry;
• Establishment of Demonstrative Units (UDs), developed in collaboration with the University of Viçosa to educate
smallholder independent producers through training courses;

MITIGATION ACTIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS 63

 • Production of training materials (such as videos, manuals, booklets) on the sustainable conversion of charcoal
for (i) technical training aimed at steel companies, universities, and research institutes; (ii) policymakers and
decisionmakers; and (iii) project developers and financiers;
• As of December 2019, over 300 and 50 people had been trained, respectively, in the construction and operation of
furnace systems and carbon balance methodologies;
• Delivery of training on business models involving a furnace system and courses on forestry techniques for 100
extension workers;
• Completion of business plans for the adoption of sustainable technologies in Zona da Mata, where hillside kilns
predominate, as well as in the Northeast of Minas Gerais, where traditional furnaces (rectangular or “hot tail” kilns)
predominate;
• A company hired for the ongoing elaboration of the sustainability strategy for the Brazilian pig iron, steel and
ferroalloys sector;
• Execution of a Memorandum of Understanding between the UNDP (project implementing agency) and universities,
NGOs, and state federations of industry and agriculture, thereby showing the positive reception of the project by
the private sector (charcoal producers and the pig iron, steel and ferroalloy sector) and other stakeholders and
partners (academia, local government, sectoral entities, etc.). In addition, a strong relationship was established with
other institutions at the national and state levels, including banks, research institutions, and industrial systems;
• Inclusion of charcoal production in the National Plan for the Development of Planted Forests, launched in December
2018. In concrete terms, with the possibility of financing furnaces for wood carbonization.

Name: Increase in energy supply by hydroelectric power plants

Nature of the action: NAMA

Sector: Energy

Coordinating Institution: Ministry of Mines and Energy

Gas (es): CO2e

General Objective: To increase installed capacity from hydroelectric power plants in the national energy mix

Period: 2010 - 2019. BUR4 will focus on the 2016-2019 period. Information on the 2010-2017 period is available in BUR1,
BUR2, and BUR3.

Estimated reduction related to the NAMA: 79 to 99 million tCO2e by 2020

Specific Objective: To introduce Hydroelectric Power Plants (HPP) to the national electric system.
Goals: To increase installed capacity of Hydroelectric Power Plants in the national electric system.
Progress Indicators: Increased installed capacity of Hydroelectric Power Plants. Unit: MW.
Methodologies and assumptions: Electric energy auctions are instruments for the insertion of new enterprises for
the supply of electric energy. The regulation on the trading of electric energy provides that electric power distribution
companies must guarantee the attendance of their electric energy market. Thus, auctions are promoted including, but not
limited to, the objectives of hiring energy at the lowest possible price and attracting investors for the construction of new
plants for the expansion of generation, including hydroelectric plants.
Actions/Steps taken: In the 2018-2019 period, there were 04 auctions of different formats that included the insertion of
hydroelectric power plants, among other sources.
Outcomes: Additional 8,337 MW of Installed Capacity of Hydroelectric Power Plants in the 2018-2019 period22.

Source: MME. Resenha Energética Brasileira, edição 2019, 2020.

22

<http://www.mme.gov.br/web/guest/secretarias/planejamento-e-desenvolvimento-energetico/publicacoes/resenha-energetica-brasileira>

64 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Specific Objective: To promote the insertion of Small Hydroelectric Plants (SHPs and HPPs) in the national electric system,
including distributed generation.
Goals: To increase installed capacity of Small Hydroelectric Plants in the national electric system.
Progress Indicators: Increased installed capacity of Small Hydroelectric Plants. Unit: MW.
Methodologies and assumptions: Electric energy auctions are instruments for the insertion of new enterprises for the
supply of electric energy. The regulation on the trading of electric energy provides that electric power distribution companies
must guarantee the attendance of their electric energy market. Thus, auctions are promoted including, but not limited to,
the objectives of hiring energy at the lowest possible price and attracting investors for the construction of new plants for
the expansion of generation, including small hydroelectric plants. In 2015, ANEEL published Normative Resolution No. 687,
providing a set of rules for Distributed Generation that regulates consumers for electricity generation for their use and the
surplus supply to the local distribution network.
Actions/Steps taken: In the 2018-2019 period, there were 04 auctions of different formats that included the insertion of
hydroelectric generation, among other sources. Implementation of the regulatory framework for distributed generation.
Outcomes: Additional 498 MW of Installed Capacity of Hydroelectric Power Plants in the 2018-2019 period22.

Name: Alternative Energy Sources

Nature of the action: NAMA

Sector: Energy

Coordinating Institution: Ministry of Mines and Energy

Gas (es): CO2e

General Objective: Increased installed capacity in solar, wind, and biomass sources in the national energy mix

Period: 2010 - 2019. BUR4 will focus on the 2016-2019 period. Information on the 2010-2017 period is available in BUR1,
BUR2, and BUR3.

Estimated reduction related to the NAMA: 26 to 33 million tCO2e by 2020

Specific Objective: To promote the insertion of wind plants in the national electric system, including distributed generation.
Goals: To increase installed capacity of wind plants in the national electric system
Progress Indicators: Increased installed capacity of wind plants. Unit: MW
Methodologies and assumptions: The regulation electric energy trading provides that electric power distribution
companies must guarantee the attendance of their entire electric energy market by holding electric energy auctions.
Thus, auctions are promoted including, but not limited to, the objectives of hiring energy at the lowest possible price
and attracting investors for the construction of new plants for the expansion of generation, including wind sources. In
2015, ANEEL published Normative Resolution No. 687, providing a set of rules for Distributed Generation that regulates
consumers for electricity generation for their use and the surplus supply to the local distribution network.
Actions/Steps taken: In the 2018-2019 period, there were 04 auctions of different formats that included the insertion of
wind generation, among other sources. Implementation of the regulatory framework for distributed generation.
Outcomes: Additional 3,095 MW of Installed Capacity of Wind Plants in the 2018-2019 period22.

Specific Objective: To promote the insertion of solar photovoltaic plants in the national electric system, including
distributed generation.
Goals: To increase installed capacity of solar photovoltaic plants in the national electric system.
Progress Indicators: Increased installed capacity of solar photovoltaic plants. Unit: MW
Methodologies and assumptions: The regulation on electric energy trading provides that electric power distribution
companies must guarantee the attendance of their entire electric energy market by holding electric energy auctions.
Thus, auctions are promoted including, but not limited to, the objectives of hiring energy at the lowest possible price
and attracting investors for the construction of new plants for the expansion of generation, including solar photovoltaic
generation. In 2015, ANEEL published Normative Resolution No. 687, providing a set of rules for Distributed Generation
that regulates consumers for electricity generation for their use and the surplus supply to the local distribution network.
Actions/Steps taken: In the 2018-2019 period, there were 04 auctions of different formats that included the insertion of
solar generation, among other sources. Implementation of the regulatory framework for distributed generation.
Outcomes: Additional 3,346 MW of Installed Capacity of Solar Photovoltaic Plants in the 2018-2019 period22.

MITIGATION ACTIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS 65

 Specific Objective: To promote the insertion of biomass thermal power plants in the national electric system, including
distributed generation
Goals: To increase installed capacity of biomass thermal plants in the national electric system.
Progress Indicators: Increased installed capacity of biomass thermal plants. Unit: MW.
Methodologies and assumptions: The regulation on electric energy trading provides that electric power distribution
companies must guarantee the attendance of their entire electric energy market by holding electric energy auctions.
Thus, auctions are promoted including, but not limited to, the objectives of hiring energy at the lowest possible price and
attracting investors for the construction of new plants for the expansion of generation, including biomass thermal power
plants. In 2015, ANEEL published Normative Resolution No. 687, providing a set of rules for Distributed Generation that
regulates consumers for electricity generation for their use and the surplus supply to the local distribution network.
Actions/Steps taken: In the 2018-2019 period, there were 04 auctions of different formats that included the insertion of
biomass thermal plants, among other sources. Implementation of the regulatory framework for distributed generation.
Outcomes: Additional 302 MW of Installed Capacity of Biomass Thermal Plants in the 2018-2019 period22.

Name: Increase the use of Biofuels

Nature of the action: NAMA

Sector: Energy

Coordinating Institution: Ministry of Mines and Energy

Gas (es): CO2e

General Objective: To increase the amount of biofuel in the national energy mix.

Period: 2010 - 2019. BUR4 will focus on the 2018-2019 period. Information on the 2010-2017 period is available in BUR1,
BUR2, and BUR3.

Estimated reduction related to the NAMA: 48 to 60 million tCO2e by 2020

Specific Objective: To promote the supply of Ethanol (anhydrous and hydrated alcohol) to replace gasoline.
Goals: To promote the supply of Ethanol.
Progress Indicators: Supply of Ethanol. Unit: m³.
Methodologies and assumptions: The RenovaBio Program aims at promoting the adequate expansion of biofuels in the
energy mix, thus promoting the regularity of fuel supply in the market and inducing gains in energy efficiency and reduction
of GHG emissions.
Actions/Steps taken: Establishment of the National Policy on Biofuels (RenovaBio Program) through Law 13,576/2017.
Outcomes: Supply of 68,400,000 m³ of ethanol added to the fuel mix in the 2018-2019 period22.

Specific Objective: To promote the supply of biodiesel to replace fossil diesel.

Goals: To encourage the supply of biodiesel.
Progress Indicators: Supply of biodiesel. Unit: m³.
Methodologies and assumptions: Law No. 13,263/2016 determined that the percentages of mandatory blending of
biodiesel into diesel oil should be 8% (eight percent) 12 months after the enactment of the Law; 9% (nine percent) 24
months after the enactment of the Law; and 10% 36 months after the enactment of the Law. As of 2019, the biodiesel
blending might get to 15% after tests and trials with engines.
Actions/Steps taken: Establishment of the National Policy on Biofuels (RenovaBio Program) through Law 13,576/2017.
Establishment of biodiesel blending percentages in fossil diesel through Law 13,263/2016.
Outcomes: Supply of 11,274,000 m³ of biodiesel added to the fuel mix in the 2018-2019 period22.

66 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

 Name: Energy Efficiency

Nature of the action: NAMA

Sector: Energy

Coordinating Institution: Ministry of Mines and Energy

Gas (es): CO2e

General Objective: To reduce the use of fossil fuels and electricity through increased energy efficiency in
different sectors of the economy

Period: 2010 - 2018. BUR4 will focus on 2018. Information on the 2010-2017 period is available in BUR1, BUR2,
and BUR3.

Estimated reduction related to the NAMA: 12 to 15 million tCO2e by 2020

Specific Objective: To encourage the reduction of electricity consumption through government programs on
energy efficiency.
Goals: To encourage the reduction of electric energy consumption.
Progress Indicators: Reduction in electric energy consumption. Unit: GWh.
Methodologies and assumptions: Reducing electricity consumption reduces GHG emissions. The calculation of
the results of the PROCEL Program to reduce electricity consumption and ANEEL’s energy efficiency projects will
be the basis for measuring the progress of this specific objective implementation.
Actions/Steps taken: Regulation of the use of resources for the PROCEL Program through Law 13,280/2016.
Implementation of the PROCEL Resource Application Program.
Outcomes: Reduction of 44,590 GWh in the country’s electricity consumption in the 2018-2019 period23.

Specific Objective: To encourage the use of highly efficient electrical equipment.

Goals: To increase the supply of highly efficient electrical equipment.
Progress Indicators: Number of electrical equipment models bearing the PROCEL label.
Methodologies and assumptions: Participation in the equipment labeling program is voluntary. The PROCEL
label was created to increase the number of certified pieces of equipment with high-energy efficiency levels. The
label is a widely publicized award, which contributes to brand recognition.
Actions/Steps taken: Awarding the PROCEL label for high energy efficiency equipment, with the Brazilian
Labeling Program as a reference.
Result: Supply of 3,627 electrical equipment models with the PROCEL Label in 201823.

Specific Objective: To encourage the use of highly efficient vehicles.

Goals: To increase the supply of highly efficient vehicles.
Progress Indicators: Number of vehicle models bearing the CONPET label.
Methodologies and assumptions: Participation in the vehicle labeling program is voluntary. The CONPET label
was created to increase the number of certified vehicles with high-energy efficiency levels. The label is a widely
publicized award, which contributes to brand recognition.
Actions/Steps taken: Awarding the CONPET label for high fuel efficiency vehicles, with the Brazilian Labeling
Program as a reference.
Result:
Supply of 78 vehicle models with the CONPET Label in 2018;
Supply of 59 vehicle models with the CONPET Label in 201924.

23
Source: Procel. Resultados do Procel - Ano Base 2018 <http://www.procelinfo.com.br/main.asp?View={EC4300F8-43FE-4406-8281-
08DDF478F35B}> and Aneel. Website: Program Management <https://www.aneel.gov.br/programa-eficiencia-energetica>
24
Source: Inmetro. Inmetro. Website: PBE Veicular <http://www.inmetro.gov.br/consumidor/tabelas.asp>

MITIGATION ACTIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS 67

 3.1 CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM (CDM) PROJECTS IN BRAZIL: AN
UPDATE

From February 2004 to December 2017, the Executive Board of the Interministerial Commission
on Global Climate Change (CIMGC, for its acronym in Portuguese) – the Brazilian Designated National
Authority (DNA) for the CDM – received 466 CDM project activity proposals. Out of these, 426 project
activities were approved by the CIMGC, one activity was rejected and 39 had their assessment not
finalized or canceled at the request of the project participants.

Of the total projects approved by the CIMGC, 344 project activities were registered with the
CDM Executive Board, thus accounting for an increase of 2 projects in relation to the latest BUR.

120

100

80

60

40

20

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure IV: Annual distribution of Brazilian project activities registered with the CDM Executive Board (Nov 2004-Dec 2019).

Most registrations occurred in 2006, when the CDM started to consolidate its position in the
carbon market, and in 2012, marking the end of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.
Table XVII shows that 27.7% of the total CDM projects in Brazil registered by December 2019 are
related to hydropower plants (96 projects), followed by biogas (18.3%), wind power plants (16.6%),
landfill gas (15.1%), and biomass energy (11.9%).

As for the reduction of GHG emissions, the largest contributions result from
hydropower plants, landfill gas, decomposition of N2O and wind power plant project activities,
whose estimated combined emission reduction amounts to more than 319 million tCO2e.

As shown in Table XVII, for projects registered from 2004 to 2019, Brazil has a significant emission
reduction potential of 380 million tCO2e, for the first crediting period.

68 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

TABLE XVII: DISTRIBUTION OF CDM PROJECT ACTIVITIES IN BRAZIL PER TYPE OF
PROJECT ACTIVITY, REGISTERED BY DECEMBER 2019

Estimated reduction in GHG

CDM Project Activities emissions for the first crediting
period
Types of project activities
% in relation % in relation
Quantity tCO2eq
to total to total

Hydropower 96 27.9 138,805,656 36.5

Biogas 63 18.3 24,861,823 6.5

Wind power 57 16.5 44,306,593 11.7

Landfill gas 52 15.1 91,367,345 24

Biomass energy 41 11.9 16,091,394 4.2

Substitution of Fossil Fuel 9 2.6 2,664,006 0.7

Methane Avoided 9 2.6 8,627,473 2.3

Decomposition of N2O 5 1.5 44,660,882 11.8

Utilization and heat recovery 4 1.2 2,986,000 0.8

Reforestation and Afforestation 3 0.9 2,408,842 0.6

Use of materials 1 0.3 199,959 0.1

Photovoltaic Solar Energy 1 0.3 6,594 0

Energy Efficiency 1 0.3 382,214 0.1

Replacement of SF6 1 0.3 1,923,005 0.5

PFC reduction and Replacement 1 0.3 802,860 0.2

Total 344 100 380,094,646 100

In terms of the estimated annual reduction of GHG emissions, associated with the CDM project
activities registered from 2004 to 2019, Brazil had a reduction potential of 53,043,098 tCO2e per year,
which reflects the significant potential for Brazil’s participation in the global effort to fight climate
change.

MITIGATION ACTIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS 69

4
CONSTRAINTS AND
GAPS, AND RELATED
FINANCIAL, TECHNICAL
AND CAPACITY NEEDS;
INFORMATION ON
SUPPORT RECEIVED
 4.1 CONSTRAINTS AND GAPS, AND RELATED
FINANCIAL, TECHNICAL AND CAPACITY
NEEDS; INFORMATION ON SUPPORT
RECEIVED

4.1 CONSTRAINTS AND GAPS, AND RELATED FINANCIAL, TECHNICAL AND

CAPACITY NEEDS

Due to the country’s dimensions and diversity in terms of social, economic and environmental
factors, the information presented in this chapter should be considered as provisional, partial
and non-exhaustive. There are considerable challenges related to any in-depth consideration
and identification of constraints and gaps, and related financial, technical and capacity needs at a
comprehensive scale. The table below summarizes technical, capacity building and financial support
needs in some areas of interest for further international cooperation, without prejudice to other
areas that may be identified further.

TABLE XVIII: CONSTRAINTS AND GAPS, AND RELATED FINANCIAL, TECHNICAL AND
CAPACITY NEEDS

Related Capacity- Technology

Activity Sector Gap Constraint Financial needs
NAMA building-needs transfer needs

Measurement, Vast territory for Financial

Lack of more
reporting and verification and resources for
detailed on-site
verification of validation coverage, acquisition or
data and images
transformation and limited resources access to images
Agriculture ABC Plan for measurement NA NA
and maintenance for the acquisition of and field trips for
and validation
actions of resilient supplies and travel measurement
of efforts and
and sustainable throughout the and validation of
results.
production systems national territory interpretations
Highly diverse
systems and
stakeholders involved
in the various
States, and dynamic Financial
Lack of a
evolution of actions resources for
Measurement, participatory
and knowledge, hiring staff
reporting and and integrated
which require an necessary for
verification of system to feed
easily accessible, the development
transformation the monitoring
Agriculture ABC Plan transparent and structuring NA NA
and maintenance system and fluid
and consistent of a participatory
actions of resilient processes for
system. Limited and integrated
and sustainable data input and
resources for hiring feeding system
production systems information
domestic experts for the monitoring
output
in data storage and system
organization systems,
with fluid processes
for data input and
information output

CONSTRAINTS AND GAPS, AND RELATED FINANCIAL, TECHNICAL AND CAPACITY NEEDS;
INFORMATION ON SUPPORT RECEIVED
71
 Related Capacity- Technology
Activity Sector Gap Constraint Financial needs
NAMA building-needs transfer needs

Diverse stakeholders
involved in the various
States, and dynamic
evolution of activities,
Absence of a technologies, and
Financial
participatory knowledge, as well
Measurement, resources for the
process and as differences in
reporting and development and
an integrated the behavior of
verification of implementation
system for technologies and
transformation of an integrated
Agriculture ABC Plan validation and systems, in the
and maintenance system and a
verification of various biomes.
actions of resilient participatory
results by experts Limited resources
and sustainable process for
for monitoring for hiring domestic
production systems validating the
and analysis experts and travel
results of analyzes
purposes of stakeholders
for consultations,
verification,
discussion, and data
validation.
Diverse data and
institutions, as well
as strategies to
Limited ensure the necessary
Measurement,
harmonized transparency and Financial
reporting and
preliminary reliability of a resources for Training of
verification of
information for national traceability establishing experts on
transformation
Agriculture ABC Plan the development and certification an effective traceability and
and maintenance
of a national system. Limited traceability and certification
actions of resilient
traceability and resources for hiring certification systems
and sustainable
certification domestic experts system
production systems
system and conducting
preliminary studies
for a traceability and
certification system.
Limited resources
to promote the
necessary training,
consolidation and
dissemination of
knowledge, taking
Knowledge gap Financial
into consideration
in relation to best resources Support for
the diversity of
Improve the capacity practices and to develop professional
stakeholders involved
of technical and technologies, Infrastructure and training and
Agriculture ABC Plan in the various
financial assistance and systems that studies, purchase dissemination of
States, the dynamic
agents are appropriate equipment, and knowledge
evolution of activities,
to the various promote capacity-
technologies, and
biomes building
knowledge, as
well as differences
in behavior of
technologies and
systems in different
Brazilian biomes.

72 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

 Related Capacity- Technology
Activity Sector Gap Constraint Financial needs
NAMA building-needs transfer needs

Increased
complexity and
uncertainty
due to climate
change, need for
new research Limited resources Financial
in the biological for data collection, resources for Exchange of Exchange of
Technology research
Agriculture ABC Plan and agricultural studies, and infrastructure, knowledge and knowledge and
and development
domains, technological equipment, and technologies technologies
statistics development studies
and data
interpretation,
and alternative
and innovative
solutions
Awareness of
Shortfalls in the importance
the integration of the initiative
Cooperation
of systems Limited resources, Financial for the country’s
between the Federal
for granting including budgetary resources for reputation and
Government and PPCDAm e
LULUCF vegetation constraints technical and the development NA
state governments PPCerrado
suppression institutional of public policies
to improve forest
licenses across cooperation to combat illegal
management
the various levels practices, and
of government promote legal
compliance
Financial
Techniques
resources for the
Strengthening related to
Limited resources, dissemination of Training on
of forest fire PPCDAm e integrated fire
LULUCF including budgetary techniques for integrated fire NA
prevention and PPCerrado management are
constraints the control and management
control actions not yet widely
prevention of
disseminated
forest fires
Management
Promotion of Enabling
Lack of recognition of quick, Exchange of
bioeconomy business
PPCDAm e of the importance of efficient, and technologies
and payment for LULUCF environment and NA
PPCerrado the contribution of user-oriented for process
environmental the absence of
market mechanisms administrative management
services legal certainty
processes
Design and Technology
Financial Training of
implementation of transfer to
Scarce sources of resources for stakeholders
new pilot projects in LULUCF and Sustainable Limited financial stakeholders
financing for new the design and in regions not
regions not covered Industry steel industry resources in regions not
pilot projects implementation of covered by the
by the current covered by the
new pilot projects current project
project current project
Scarce sources Financial
Expansion of of financing for resources for Training of
the results- the extension the extension stakeholders that
based payment of the results- of the results- are not covered
LULUCF and Sustainable Limited financial
mechanism for based payment based payment by the current NA
Industry steel industry resources
companies not mechanism for mechanism for project (e.g. MRV
covered by the companies not companies not methodology,
current project covered by the covered by the MRV platform)
current project current project

CONSTRAINTS AND GAPS, AND RELATED FINANCIAL, TECHNICAL AND 73

CAPACITY NEEDS; INFORMATION ON SUPPORT RECEIVED
 Related Capacity- Technology
Activity Sector Gap Constraint Financial needs
NAMA building-needs transfer needs

Financial Technology
Scarce sources Training of
resources to transfer to
Promotion of gains of financing for stakeholders not
LULUCF and Sustainable Limited financial promote gains stakeholders
of scale of the pilot gains of scale of currently covered
Industry steel industry resources of scale of the not currently
project the current pilot by the pilot
current pilot covered by the
project project
project pilot project
Support for
professional
Financial training and
Need for
resources for dissemination
Training to broaden consolidating and
the technological of knowledge Cooperation for
the insertion of disseminating
Limited resources development, on concentrated technological
non-conventional Alternative technologies
for consolidation consolidation, and solar thermal development in
renewable sources Energy energy for energy
and dissemination of dissemination sources, concentrated
in the national sources exploration by
knowledge of knowledge including solar thermal
energy mix concentrated
in concentrated seminars, sources
solar thermal
solar thermal workshops, and
plants
plants exchange of
experiences on
the topic
Support for
professional
Financial training and
resources for dissemination
Needs related to
Training to broaden Limited resources the technological of knowledge Cooperation for
Alternative consolidation and
the insertion of for consolidation development, on energy technological
Energy energy dissemination of
energy storage and dissemination of consolidation, and storage, including development in
sources energy storage
technologies knowledge dissemination seminars, energy storage
technologies
of knowledge on workshops, and
energy storage exchange of
experiences on
the topic
Support for
professional
Financial training and Cooperation for
Training to promote Shortfalls in resources for the dissemination the development
the consolidation the Monitoring, development and of knowledge on and
Limited resources
of Monitoring, Reporting and dissemination of MRV related to dissemination of
Energy for consolidation
Reporting and Energy Verification methodologies energy efficiency, methodologies
efficiency and dissemination of
Verification systems processes of and procedures including and procedures
knowledge
(MRV) of energy energy efficiency for the MRV of seminars, for the MRV of
efficiency programs programs energy efficiency workshops, and energy efficiency
programs exchange of programs
experiences on
the topic
Methodologies
Methodological Lack of awareness
Quantification of Development, and technologies
Agriculture, difficulties in of the importance
greenhouse gas implementation, for quantifying
Energy, quantifying of generating
emission reductions All NA and emission
LULUCF, and emissions information on
by the production dissemination of reductions by
Industry reductions by the emissions/removals
chain methodologies production
production chain by economic activity
chains
Lack of
Exchanges,
information Financial
webinars,
and data on resources for
Agriculture, international
activities and Limited resources for infrastructure,
Encouragement to Waste, exchange of Exchange of
shortfalls persist technology research equipment, and
technology research Energy, NA experiences, technologies and
in the scientific and development for encouragement
and development LULUCF, and and training on knowledge
and technical climate sciences of studies and
Industry how to transfer
production based research projects
technologies and
on the country’s on climate change
knowledge
reality

74 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

 Related Capacity- Technology
Activity Sector Gap Constraint Financial needs
NAMA building-needs transfer needs

Training on how
Absence of a
Financial to structure
Poor legal framework
Improvement Agriculture, resources for and assure
systematization, establishing
of the emission Waste, infrastructure information Exchange of
organization, responsibilities
monitoring, Energy, NA and agencies for the proper technologies and
and availability and operation of a
reporting and LULUCF, and responsible for monitoring, knowledge
of official national system for
verification system Industry systematizing the reporting and
information the National GHG
information verification of
Inventory
emissions
Financial
Exchanges,
resources to
webinars,
Strengthening of support the
international
existing institutional Lack of an official structuring of
Agriculture, exchange of
arrangements information Limited resources to a platform, for
Waste, experiences Exchange of
through training center to inform structure collaborative infrastructure,
Energy, NA on information technologies and
and information the climate modeling of encouragement
LULUCF, and modeling and knowledge
generation via change decision- transparency of studies and
Industry networking to
climate and making process research projects
support the
economic modeling to inform a
decision-making
long-term climate
process
change strategy

4.2 INFORMATION ON SUPPORT RECEIVED

External financing through multilateral and bilateral channels has contributed to support
policies to fight climate change and its effects in Brazil in recent years. However, there was a noticeable
reduction in the amounts contributed by the cooperating countries and organizations throughout
the period covered by this report (2018-2019). For a better assessment of the implementation of
public policies and programs for mitigating and adapting to climate change around the world, it
is crucial to identify the amount and allocation of these flows, evaluate their outcomes and their
contribution to the implementation of national priority actions with a view to identifying challenges
and opportunities to optimize the use of resources. In this context, Brazil views the Biennial Update
Reports (BURs) as important sources of information.

Following up from the data provided in the previous BURs, this section provides current
information on the international support received by the country to implement actions to combat
climate change. Public resources committed to Brazilian entities through multilateral and bilateral
channels (Parties included in Annex II of the Convention) in 2018 and 2019 are considered. This
chapter seeks to provide, in a table format, the information in the most complete, disaggregated,
and transparent manner. In addition to maintaining the same BUR3 reporting parameters, which had
already represented a breakthrough in relation to the previous reports, this section has retained the
parameters related to information about possible technical training component and/or technology
transfer and links to the project/contract, allowing the reader reference to detailed information.

In collecting data for this chapter, information from multilateral institutions was more
comprehensive and comparable than bilateral flows data. Notwithstanding improvements in the
data collected in support of the current BUR, the information provided by some multilateral financing
institutions and developed countries still lacks the necessary completeness, transparency, and
comparability to allow identification of the projects supported, with a view to their due recognition.

CONSTRAINTS AND GAPS, AND RELATED FINANCIAL, TECHNICAL AND 75

CAPACITY NEEDS; INFORMATION ON SUPPORT RECEIVED
 Because of these restrictions, information on bilateral channels only includes resources that
have been internalized through a public entity or implemented under the coordination of a public
entity (whether federal, state, or municipal). Information on multilateral channels, in turn, also includes
resources directed to private companies. Like in the case of BUR2, a decision was made to use the
resource commitment date as a reference for inclusion in the listing, thus avoiding any potential
duplications. Therefore, projects currently under implementation that were approved or had their
resources committed by the relevant institutions before 2018-2019 were not included. As for REDD+
resources, there has been no changes in their reporting rationale since BUR3, where actual amounts
for a particular year are reported.

In terms of financial instruments, grants, loans and shareholding information is reported

herein. All amounts are in US dollars. When data was available in a currency other than the US
dollar, the conversion rate used was based on that of the OECD annual exchange rate for the project
commitment year25. Funding institutions themselves reported the percentages of climate components
shown on the tables. For the identification of technical training and technology transfer components,
the criteria used were those adopted under the UNFCCC26.

The contribution of resources to Brazil in 2018-2019 totaled approximately US$1.874 billion,

with less than 6% allocated through bilateral channels. There was a decrease in relation to the bilateral
support received in previous biennia, from more than US$437 million in 2016-2017 to about US$100
million in 2018-2019. It should also be noted that multilateral contributions for 2018 and 2019 did not
reach 50% of the contributions in 2017.

In view of the importance of international financing in catalyzing climate change action, Brazil
has stressed the need for the financial contribution to be adequate, predictable, sustainable, new,
and additional. In recalling the developed countries’ commitment to contribute with US$ 100 billion
per year by 2020, Brazil stresses that the current status of implementation of the commitment is not
clear.

25
Available in: <https://data.oecd.org/conversion/exchange-rates.htm>
26
Available in: <https://bigpicture.unfccc.int/content/capacity-building.html#content-capacity-building> and <https://unfccc.int/resource/
docs/2009/sb/eng/02.pdf>.

76 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

 TABLE XIX: SUPPORT RECEIVED BY MULTILATERAL CHANNELS IN 2018

Type of Sector (energy,

Capacity-
support transportation, industry, Climate- Climate-
Commitment / building (1) /
(mitigation, agriculture, forests, Total financing specific specific Financing
Institution Project name receipt date Technology Source
adaptation, water resources and (US$ Millions) component financing instrument
(MM/DD/YYYY) transfer (2) / Not
cross-cutting, sanitation, cross-cutting, (%) (US$)
applicable (NA)
other) other, not applicable)

Water resources and Tietê River Cleanup Program, https://www.iadb.org/en/

IaDB Mitigation $300.00 96 % $288,000,000 Loan 10/11/2018 1/2
sanitation Stage IV project/BR-L1492

Sobral Socioenvironmental
CAF Database
CAF Mitigation Energy efficiency Development Program $50.00 100 % $50,000,000 Loan 11/14/2018 NA
(unavailable)
(PRODESOL), State of Ceará

Conservation, Restoration and

Sustainable Management in the https://www.iadb.org/en/
GEF/IaDB Mitigation Forests $32.62 100 % $32,620,000 Grant 03/12/2018 1/ 2
Caatinga, Pampa and Pantanal - project/BR-G1004
GEF Terrestre

25.00 https://disclosures.ifc.
Agriculture (Sugar &
IFC Mitigation Usina Açucareira S. Manoel S.A. (+35.00 99.51 % $23,877,500 Loan June 2018 NA org/#/projectDetail/
Ethanol)
syndicated loan) SII/40264

Sustainable Transit-Oriented https://www.iadb.org/en/

CTF/IaDB Mitigation Urban development $2.00 100 % $2,000,000 Grant 12/06/2018 1/2
Development in Brazil project/BR-T1394

https://www.greenclimate.
Technology Needs Assessment
fund/document/strategic-
GCF Mitigation Cross-cutting for the Implementation of $0.70 100 % $700,000 Grant 06/12/2018 NA
frameworks-support-
Climate Action Plans in Brazil
brazil-through-unep

Enhancing Brazil’s Capacity to Grant -

https://mydata.iadb.org/
IaDB Cross-cutting NA Access Green Climate Fund (GCF) $0.25 100 % $250,000 technical 05/30/2018 1
es/widgets/tvpd-d486
Finance for NDC Implementation cooperation

Agricultural Risk Management

Grant -
and Crop Insurance in Brazil: https://www.iadb.org/en/
IaDB Adaptation Agriculture $0.22 100 % $220,000 technical 11/28/2018 1/2
Climate Risk Monitoring Small- project/BR-T1404
cooperation
Scale Farmers

Technical assistance program for

CAF Database
CAF Mitigation Sanitation the municipality of Sobral: solid $0.20 100 % $200,000 Grant 02/19/2018 1
(unavailable)
waste and sustainable transport

Studies for the establishment

Forests and natural of the Fonte dos Padres Linear CAF Database
CAF Adaptation $0.20 100 % $200,000 Grant 10/26/2018 1
capital Park in the municipality of (unavailable)
Alagoinhas (BAHIA)

https://www.thegef.
Cities-IAP: Promoting
org/project/cities-iap-
Sustainable Cities in Brazil
promoting-sustainable-

CAPACITY NEEDS; INFORMATION ON SUPPORT RECEIVED

CONSTRAINTS AND GAPS, AND RELATED FINANCIAL, TECHNICAL AND
GEF Cross-cutting Cross-cutting through Integrated Urban $24.67 63 % $15,673,000 Grant March 2018 1/2
cities-brazil-through-
Planning and Innovative
integrated-urban-
Technologies Investment
planning-and

SABESP - Improving Water https://projects.

77
Service Access and Security in worldbank.org/en/
IBRD Cross-cutting Water resources $250.00 44.25 % $110,630,000 Loan 12/18/2018 NA
the Metropolitan Region of São projects-operations/
Paulo project-detail/P165695
78
Type of Sector (energy,
Capacity-
support transportation, industry, Climate- Climate-
Commitment / building (1) /
(mitigation, agriculture, forests, Total financing specific specific Financing
Institution Project name receipt date Technology Source
adaptation, water resources and (US$ Millions) component financing instrument
(MM/DD/YYYY) transfer (2) / Not
cross-cutting, sanitation, cross-cutting, (%) (US$)
applicable (NA)
other) other, not applicable)

City of São Paulo Health Care

Networks Restructuring and https://www.iadb.org/en/
IaDB Mitigation Health $100.00 43 % $42,690,000 Loan 10/26/2018 1/2
Quality Certification Project – project/BR-L1429
Avança Saúde SP

Urban Improvement Program

and Citizen Security Program https://www.iadb.org/en/
IaDB Cross-cutting Urban development $100.00 40 % $39,660,000 Loan 09/28/2018 1/2
(Phase One of the Sustainable project/BR-L1497
Vitória Action Plan)

https://www.fonplata.org/
Transportation, urban Ecological Axis Program - Green pt/projetos/programa-
Fonplata Cross-cutting $40.00 40 % $16,000,000 Loan 12/27/2018 NA
mobility, sanitation Line East Region, Leste Joinville eixo-ecologico-linha-
verde-regiao-leste-joinville

22.14 https://disclosures.ifc.
IFC Mitigation Industry (Food Industry) Bauducco (9.30 38 % $8,413,200 Loan May 2018 NA org/#/projectDetail/

FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

syndicated loan) ESRS/40796

Public Infrastructure
https://www.iadb.org/en/
IaDB Mitigation Transportation Management Investment $600.00 33 % $199,980,000 Loan 11/28/2018 1/2
project/BR-L1503
Program for Municipal Efficiency

Support for strengthening the

National Information System
on Solid Waste Management
Grant -
Water resources and (SINIR) and the Identification https://www.iadb.org/en/
IaDB Mitigation $0.50 31 % $155,000 technical 11/12/2018 1/2
sanitation and Evaluation of Infrastructure project/BR-T1392
cooperation
Investment Projects for the
Sustainable Management of
Solid Waste in Brazil

Modernization and Quality

Improvement of Health Services https://www.iadb.org/en/
IaDB Mitigation Health $56.00 24 % $13,220,000 Loan 11/30/2018 1/2
Networks in Belo Horizonte - project/BR-L1519
BetterHealth-BH

State Program to Support Urban

Development and Municipal https://www.iadb.org/en/
IaDB Cross-cutting Urban development $118.00 19 % $22,490 Loan 10/24/2018 1/2
Infrastructure Improvements: project/BR-L1520
Paraná Urbano III

Program to Modernize and

Strengthen Agricultural Health https://www.iadb.org/en/
IaDB Adaptation Agriculture $195.00 17 % $34,010,000 Loan 12/14/2018 1/2
and Food Safety Services project/BR-L1529
(PRODEFESA)

https://www.fonplata.org/
pt/projetos/programa-
Urban mobility, Itajaí 2040 Program - Modern
Fonplata Cross-cutting $62.50 14.40 % $9,000,000 Loan 10/30/2018 NA itajai-2040-moderna-e-
sanitation, others and Sustainable
sustentavel#edit-group-
tab--content
 TABLE XX: SUPPORT RECEIVED BY BILATERAL CHANNELS IN 2018

Sector Capacity-
Type of
(energy, transportation, building (1) /
support Climate- Climate-
industry, agriculture, Total Commitment / Technology
Country/ (mitigation, Total specific specific Financing
forests, water resources Project name financing receipt date transfer Source
Institution adaptation, financing component financing instrument
and sanitation, cross- (US$) (MM/DD/YYYY) (2) / Not
cross-cutting, (%) (US$)
cutting, other, not applicable
other)
applicable) (NA)

http://www.
Grant / results- fundoamazonia.
Norway Mitigation Forests/REDD+ Amazon Fund $70,311,127 100 % $70,311,127 12/17/2018 NA
$70,311,127 base payment gov.br/pt/fundo-
amazonia/doacoes/

United REDD For Early Movers - Acre Grant / results- http://redd.mma.gov.

Mitigation Forests/REDD+ $9,436,244 $9,436,244 100 % $9,436,244 12/26/2018 NA
Kingdom - BEIS Phase II base payment br/en/infohub

REDD For Early Movers - Mato Grant / results- http://redd.mma.gov.

Germany - KfW Mitigation Forests/REDD+ $5,700,000 $5,700,000 100 % $5,700,000 12/27/2018 NA
Grosso base payment br/en/infohub

REDD For Early Movers - Acre Grant / results- http://redd.mma.gov.

Germany - KfW Mitigation Forests/REDD+ $2,850,000 $2,850,000 100 % $2,850,000 12/26/2018 NA
Phase II base payment br/en/infohub

http://euroclimaplus.
org/component/
sppagebuilder/297-
Building a national and construccion-de-
regional strategy for Grant / results- uma-estrategia-
EU/EuroClima+ Cross-cutting Other € 39,100 $46,164 100 % $46,163 05/01/2018 1
knowledge management of base payment nacional-y-regional-
green technologies para-la-gestion-de-
conocimiento-de-
tecnologias-verdes-
en-brasil

CAPACITY NEEDS; INFORMATION ON SUPPORT RECEIVED

CONSTRAINTS AND GAPS, AND RELATED FINANCIAL, TECHNICAL AND
79
80
TABLE XXI: SUPPORT RECEIVED BY MULTILATERAL CHANNELS IN 2019

Sector Capacity-
Type of
(energy, transportion, building (1) /
support
industry, agriculture, Climate-specific Climate-specific Commitment / Technology
(mitigation, Total financing Financing
Institution forests, water resources Project name component financing receipt date transfer Source
adaptation, (US$ Millions) instrument
and sanitation, cross- (%) (US$) (MM/DD/YYYY) (2) / Not
cross-cutting,
cutting, other, not applicable
other)
applicable) (NA)

São Paulo Metro Network

CAF Database
CAF Mitigation Transportation - Line 17 Gold - Monorail $220.00 100 % $220,000,000 Loan 10/07/2019 NA
(unavailable)
System section 1 - Brazil

103 https://disclosures.ifc.
IFC Mitigation Forestry (Pulp & Paper) Klabin Growth (+177 97 % $100,002,700 Loan Aug 2019 NA org/#/projectDetail/
syndicated loan) ESRS/42138

REDD-PLUS results-based
payments for results https://www.
GCF Mitigation Forests achieved by Brazil in the $96.50 100 % $96,452,228 Grant 02/28/2019 NA greenclimate.fund/
Amazon biome in 2014 and project/fp100
2015

FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Tietê River Recovery Project
Water resources and Upstream of the Penha Dam https://www.iadb.org/
IaDB Cross-cutting $79.87 100 % $79,866,302 Loan 12/18/2019 1/2
sanitation in the State of Sao Paulo - en/project/BR-L1536
Renasce Tietê

Sustainable Municipalities CAF Database

CAF Mitigation Sanitation $50.00 100 % $50,000,000 Loan 02/19/2019 NA
Program of the State of Pará (unavailable)

Low Carbon Agriculture for

Avoided Deforestation and Grant -
https://www.iadb.org/
IaDB Mitigation Agriculture Poverty Reduction in Brazil. $15.00 100 % $15,000,000 technical 06/19/2019 1/2
en/project/BR-T1409
Phase II - Sustainable Rural cooperation
Development in the Cerrado

Low-Carbon Agriculture for

Avoided Deforestation and Grant -
https://www.iadb.org/
IaDB Mitigation Agriculture Poverty Reduction in Brazil. $5.00 100 % $5,000,000 technical 06/27/2019 1/2
en/project/BR-T1378
Phase II – Sustainable Rural cooperation
Development in the Caatinga

Transportation (last mile Disclosure Portal IFC

IFC Mitigation Loggi $4.00 100 % $4,000,000 Equity Feb 2019 NA
logistics) (unavailable)

Grant -
São Paulo Regional Rail https://www.iadb.org/
IaDB Mitigation Transportation $2.08 100 % $2,080,000 technical 07/12/2019 1/2
Project en/project/BR-T1418
cooperation

Low Carbon Agriculture

for Avoided Deforestation
Grant -
and Poverty Reduction in https://www.iadb.org/
IaDB Mitigation Agriculture $1.20 100 % $1,200,000 technical 06/28/2019 1/2
Brazil. Phase II - Monitoring, en/project/BR-T1410
cooperation
Evaluation and Knowledge
Management
 Sector Capacity-
Type of
(energy, transportion, building (1) /
support
industry, agriculture, Climate-specific Climate-specific Commitment / Technology
(mitigation, Total financing Financing
Institution forests, water resources Project name component financing receipt date transfer Source
adaptation, (US$ Millions) instrument
and sanitation, cross- (%) (US$) (MM/DD/YYYY) (2) / Not
cross-cutting,
cutting, other, not applicable
other)
applicable) (NA)

FINEP Clima: Fostering

Grant -
Climate Technology and https://www.iadb.org/
IaDB Cross-cutting Cross-cutting $0.75 100 % $750,000 technical 08/20/2019 1/2
Innovation to Deliver Brazil’s en/project/BR-T1412
cooperation
NDCs

https://www.
Strengthening Brazilian DAEs greenclimate.fund/
GCF Other NA for the implementation and $0.52 100 % $515,217 Grant 11/08/2019 1 document/entity-
execution of GCF projects support-brazil-through-
funbio

Support for Innovation in the

Grant -
Energy Sector - Rio Grande https://www.iadb.org/
IaDB Mitigation Energy $0.25 100 % $250,000 technical 07/31/2019 1/2
do Sul, Paraná and Santa en/project/BR-T1422
cooperation
Catarina

Support for the Preparation

of the TIETÊ River Recovery Grant -
Water resources and https://www.iadb.org/
IaDB Adaptation Program Upstream of the $0.20 100 % $200,000 technical 10/07/2019 1/2
sanitation en/project/BR-T1429
PENHA Dam, in the State of cooperation
Sao Paulo - RENASCE TIETÊ

Curitiba's Sustainable Urban https://www.iadb.org/

IaDB Mitigation Transportation $106.70 83 % $88,200,000 Loan 12/18/2019 1/2
Mobility Program en/project/BR-L1532

Environmental Sanitation,
Macrodrainage, and Recovery Grant -
Water resources and https://www.iadb.org/
IaDB Cross-cutting Project for the Igarapés and $0.07 77 % $53,700 technical 11/27/2019 1/2
sanitation en/project/BR-L1508
the Banks of the Parauapebas cooperation
River/PA

https://projects.
Ceará Water Security and worldbank.org/en/
IBRD Cross-cutting Water resources $139.88 75 % $105,340,000 Loan 08/08/2019 NA
Governance projects-operations/
project-detail/P165055

https://projects.
Ceara Rural Sustainable
worldbank.org/en/
IBRD Cross-cutting Agriculture & food Development and $100.00 61 % $60,600,000 Loan 07/18/2019 NA
projects-operations/
Competitiveness Phase II
project-detail/P167455

https://www.
fonplata.org/pt/
Urban Requalification and projetos/programa-
Transportation, forests,
Fonplata Cross-cutting Environmental Improvement $27.60 40 % $11,040,000 Loan 12/29/2019 NA de-reordenamento-

CAPACITY NEEDS; INFORMATION ON SUPPORT RECEIVED

CONSTRAINTS AND GAPS, AND RELATED FINANCIAL, TECHNICAL AND
other
in Vila Velha/ES urbano-e-melhorias-
ambientais-em-vila-
velha-es

81
82
Sector Capacity-
Type of
(energy, transportion, building (1) /
support
industry, agriculture, Climate-specific Climate-specific Commitment / Technology
(mitigation, Total financing Financing
Institution forests, water resources Project name component financing receipt date transfer Source
adaptation, (US$ Millions) instrument
and sanitation, cross- (%) (US$) (MM/DD/YYYY) (2) / Not
cross-cutting,
cutting, other, not applicable
other)
applicable) (NA)

Support for the Preparation

of the Environmental
Sanitation Program of the Grant -
Water resources and https://www.iadb.org/
IaDB Cross-cutting Water Supply Sources of $0.50 33 % $165,000 technical 07/23/2019 1/2
sanitation en/project/BR-T1390
the Metropolitan Region of cooperation
Salvador and the Operational
Improvement of EMBASA

Program to Expand and

Water resources and Improve Drinking Water https://www.iadb.org/
IaDB Cross-cutting $200.00 18 % $36,260,000 Loan 03/22/2019 1/2
sanitation Services In the State of Rio en/project/BR-L1495
Grande do Sul (PROSASUL)

Urban Upgrade Program In

https://www.iadb.org/
IaDB Mitigation Urban development The Western Area Of Aracaju $75.20 3% $2,610,000 Loan 01/09/2019 1/2
en/project/BR-L1411
– Building For The Future

FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Program to Strengthen the
https://www.iadb.org/
IaDB Mitigation Health Care Model in the Paraiba $45.20 3% $1,400,000 Loan 01/23/2019 1/2
en/project/BR-L1518
Health Network

Logistics Efficiency Program https://www.iadb.org/

IaDB Adaptation Transportation $216.80 2% $4,336,000 Loan 12/11/2019 1/2
of Espirito Santo en/project/BR-L1524
 TABLE XXII: SUPPORT RECEIVED BY BILATERAL CHANNELS IN 2019

Sector Capacity-
Type of support (energy, transportation, building (1) /
Climate- Climate-
(mitigation, industry, agriculture, Total Commitment / Technology
Country/ Total specific specific Financing
adaptation, forests, water resources Project name financing receipt date transfer Source
Institution financing component financing instrument
cross-cutting, and sanitation, cross- (US$) (MM/DD/YYYY) (2) / Not
(%) (US$)
other) cutting, other, not applicable
applicable) (NA)

United Grant /
REDD For Early Movers - Mato http://redd.mma.gov.
Kingdom - Mitigation Forests/REDD+ $10,240,000 $10,240,000 100 % $10,240,000 results-base 07/06/2020 NA
Grosso br/en/infohub
BEIS payment

BBE/PR/07 - 148: Building

http://euroclimaplus.
global agendas from the
Grant - org/en/projects-
EU/ local level: ecosystem-based
Adaptation Cross-cutting € 631,700 $ 707,391 100 % $ 707,391 technical 02/15/2019 1 forest/municipal-
EuroClima+ adaptation as a catalyst for
cooperation actions-in-mexico-
municipal actions to achieve
and-brazil
global goals.*

http://euroclimaplus.
DRR/PR/05: Climate Risk Grant -
EU/ org/proyectos-riesgo/
Cross-cutting Other Management in Brazil and € 569,875 $ 638,158 100 % $ 638,158 technical 02/18/2019 1
EuroClima+ gestion-del-riesgo-
Argentina.* cooperation
climatico

BBE/PR/04 - 120: Management https://

and restoration of forests in Grant - euroclimaplus.org/
EU/
Cross-cutting Other production environments in € 373,274 $ 418,000 100 % $ 418,000 technical 01/29/2019 1 en/projects-forest/
EuroClima+
Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil cooperation living-and-producing-
and Bolivia. * in-the-chaco-forest

http://euroclimaplus.
PRA/PR/04: Resilient food Grant - org/en/projects-
EU/
Adaptation Agriculture production in agro-food value € 327,667 $ 366,928 100 % $ 366,928 technical 06/15/2019 1 foods/item/503-
EuroClima+
chains. * cooperation resilience-in-agro-
food-chains

* The project involves more than one country. The amount reported by the donor institution corresponds to support provided to Brazil.

CAPACITY NEEDS; INFORMATION ON SUPPORT RECEIVED

CONSTRAINTS AND GAPS, AND RELATED FINANCIAL, TECHNICAL AND
83
5
FUNDS
RECEIVED
FOR THE
PREPARATION
OF THE BUR
5 FUNDS RECEIVED FOR THE PREPARATION OF
THE BUR
The preparation of this report received financial support from the Global Environment Facility
(GEF). These funds were important to ensure the updating of the information provided, without which
the data collection could have been affected.

The financial support from the GEF to prepare Biennial Update Reports (BUR) was US$ 500,000
and was made available through a joint project to prepare the Fourth National Communication of
Brazil. This project is executed by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovations (MCTI) and
implemented in partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). This project
made it possible to develop the Second, Third, and Fourth BURs.

Like in the previous BUR editions, resources for the preparation of the BUR and its technical
annexes were not limited to those received from the GEF. The institutions involved had the support
and decisive contributions of different agencies and firm engagement of teams from other projects
and from the Government. The technical annexes also relied on financial resources from international
cooperation projects (PoMuC – Policies on Climate Change and the GEF’s Pilot Project on REDD+
Results-Based Payments).

FUNDS RECEIVED FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE BUR

85
6
INFORMATION ON
THE DESCRIPTION
OF DOMESTIC MRV
(MEASUREMENT,
REPORTING AND
VERIFICATION)
ARRANGEMENTS
6 INFORMATION ON THE DESCRIPTION OF
DOMESTIC MRV (MEASUREMENT, REPORTING
AND VERIFICATION) ARRANGEMENTS
This section describes, in a non-comprehensive way, the different databases and arrangements
involved in the domestic MRV of NAMAs in Brazil.

6.1 MODULAR SYSTEM FOR MONITORING ACTIONS OF GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS – SMMARE AND MRV OF ACTIONS

In 2013, a proposal was made to develop the Modular System for Monitoring Actions of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions (SMMARE for its acronym in Portuguese), for which guidelines
were established in 2014. However, since then, there has been no progress in any modular computer
system nor in the full engagement of the line ministries to produce that information27.

In order to avoid duplication of work and any increased costs, among other obstacles, the
Government is waiting for the conclusion of the New Enhanced Transparency Framework under the
Paris Agreement in order to, if appropriate, resume implementation of a transparency arrangement,
but no longer for NAMAs, which will be discontinued as of 2020.

In addition to the international environment within the scope of the Convention considered
above, Decree No. 10,145, of November 28, 2019 needs to be taken into account. It regulates the
Interministerial Committee on Climate Change (CIM) under the new governance of the National
Policy on Climate Change.

According to this Decree, among other actions required to achieve the objectives of the country’s
public actions and policies related to climate change, it is incumbent on the CIM to deliberate on the
country’s strategies for the design, implementation, financing, monitoring, evaluation, and updating
of climate change policies, plans, and actions. Monitoring of transparency activities and provision of
information in compliance with the decisions under the Convention also depend on the deliberation
of the Committee.

Unlike NAMAs, the NDC in Brazil does not have a sectoral rationale; rather, it is geared to the
economy as a whole, with some indicative mitigation actions listed in its annex. Avoiding duplicated
efforts and potential cost increases means taking this entire picture into perspective.

27
The gaps and needs associated with the quantification of the results of the mitigation actions were identified and recognized in the session
“Constraints and gaps, and related financial, technical and capacity needs”. Both developed and developing countries recognize that this type of
estimate still has a long way to go.

INFORMATION ON THE DESCRIPTION OF DOMESTIC MRV (MEASUREMENT,

REPORTING AND VERIFICATION) ARRANGEMENTS
87
 Regarding the latest approach to reporting emission reductions, it should be noted that,
initially, it aggregated data for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from the LULUCF and Agriculture
sectors, with some emission reduction estimates up to 2018. Running in parallel to this, the need for
an information dissemination tool that would allow for the monitoring of the main mitigation and
adaptation actions to climate change continued to be met and enhanced through the Educaclima
portal (www.educaclima.mma.gov.br). The portal was launched in early 2018 and provides some
preliminary data on the reporting of emissions reduction mentioned above.

Regardless of the potential inclusion of modules in specific systems, whether SMMARE or

others, different databases and arrangements described in the items below have also contributed to
the continuous improvement and strengthening of domestic MRV arrangements.

6.1.1 Actions in Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry

Given its extensive native vegetation coverage and land use and tenure dynamics, Brazil has
been implementing a number of systems to monitor and implement actions in the LULUCF sector
(Figure VI). These systems allow for the monitoring of the LULUCF NAMAs and the MRV process for
REDD+ results.

Forest
information
Implementation arrangement of the National Forest Monitoring System

National Forest Field Monitoring: NATIONAL FOREST INVENTORY

Information
System
Remote monitoring
National System
for the Control Rural Environmental Brazilian Biomes Environmental Monitoring Program
of Origin of Registry
Forest Products
Environmental
(Sinaflor) Conversion of Land use and
information on Forest fires
native vegetation cover
rural properties
Public Forests
Registry

Figure V: Main systems for monitoring and implementation of actions in the LULUCF sector.

The forest information systems displayed in the figure above provide contributions to the
implementation and monitoring of LULUCF NAMAs, as well as to the MRV process for REDD+ results,
in addition to those designed to provide and organize forest information28.

For more information on:

28

National Forest Information System, go to http://snif.florestal.gov.br/pt-br/

National System for the Control of the Origin of Forest Products, go to. http://www.ibama.gov.br/
Public Forest Registry, go to http://www.florestal.gov.br/cadastro-nacional-de-florestas-publicas

88 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

 In addition to the systems described above, the Ministry of the Environment, through support
to the National System for the Control of the Origin of Forest Products (Sinaflor), and the National Fire
Information System (Sisfogo), has been adopting measures to systematize and process information
on authorized areas of vegetation suppression and authorized burning. The main characteristics and
purposes of the initiatives that make up the conceptual model of the implementation arrangement
of a national forest monitoring system are described below.

National Forest Inventory (NFI)

The NFI’s main purpose is to generate information on forest resources, both natural and planted,
based on a 5-year measurement cycle, to support the formulation of public policies aiming at forest
resources use and conservation. The NFI will produce information on forest stocks, composition,
health, and vitality, as well as the patterns of change of these aspects over time. The NFI also includes
the development of allometric equations to estimate wood volume and biomass for different forest
physiognomies, in partnership with universities and research institutes. These estimates will support
the design of public policies for sustainable use of the forest resources and the development of
future GHG inventories for the LULUCF sector.

Environmental Monitoring of Brazilian Biomes

INPE has developed several mapping products in partnership with universities and other research
institutions. The different land use and land cover data can be accessed through the Terra Brasilis
platform29. Information on the occurrence of vegetation burning is available on the Queimadas portal30.
Additional information on land use is available TerraClass Cerrado and TerraClass Amazônia 31.

The Technical Annexes on REDD+ presents additional information on satellite monitoring

of deforestation by clear-cutting in the Legal Amazon (PRODES), as well as information on annual
deforestation rates.

Rural Environmental Registry System (SICAR)

The Rural Environmental Registry System (SICAR for its acronym in Portuguese) was created
to manage, at the national level, environmental information on rural properties. Today, the System
encompasses 5.6 million properties registered throughout the country, totaling 548.4 million hectares
registered and monitored. This information will inform national MRV reports and provide important
inputs both for combating deforestation and for mapping registered rural properties.

6.1.2 Steel Industry (charcoal)

The Emissions Reduction Plan for the Charcoal Steel Industry, launched by the Federal
Government in 2010, aims at contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions under the
NAMAs, in addition to promoting the modernization of the charcoal production needed to consolidate
the sustainability of steel and pig iron production based on this renewable resource. The strategy for

29
Terra Brasilis Platform, go to: http://terrabrasilis.info/composer/DETER-B
30
INPE’s portal on forest fires, go to: http://www.inpe.br/queimadas
TerraClass Cerrado, go to: http://www.dpi.inpe.br/tccerrado/ and
31

TerraClass Amazon, go to: http://www.inpe.br/cra/projetos_pesquisas/dados_terraclass.php

INFORMATION ON THE DESCRIPTION OF DOMESTIC MRV 89

(MEASUREMENT, REPORTING AND VERIFICATION) ARRANGEMENTS
 the actions included in the Plan has been implemented primarily via a pilot project called “Sustainable
Steel industry”, funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF). This project, coordinated by the
Ministry of the Environment and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), acts as the
implementing agency. The following institutions also participate in the Project Monitoring Committee
(CAP): Ministry of the Economy (ME), Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovations (MCTI), Ministry
of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA), and the Government of the State of Minas Gerais.
Project implementation started in 2016.

In order to follow up on the development of this action, a simplified MRV system was developed
to support the preparation of estimates of greenhouse gas emissions reductions associated with the
Project’s actions.

Within the “Sustainable Steel Industry” project, support is underway for six initiatives by steel
companies, which were selected through a public bidding process, to participate in the payment
mechanism for results achieved and verified in terms of the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Following education and training efforts, the MRV methodology is now being applied by these companies.

It should also be mentioned that an independent audit has been hired to verify the greenhouse
gas emission reduction results by the supported businesses under the results-based payment
mechanism.

For the second phase of the project, which will run until 2021, expansion of the project support
to small and medium charcoal producers will be expanded, with a view to promoting greater reach
and providing gains of scale in more efficient technologies for the Brazilian steel sector and the
resulting reduction in GHG emissions.

6.1.3 SIGABC Agriculture and ABC Platform

Measurement, Reporting and Verification of the ABC Plan is being implemented through the
creation of the Integrated Information System of the Sector Plan for the Consolidation of a Low Carbon
Economy in Agriculture (SIN-ABC for its acronym in Portuguese). SIN-ABC merges the Governance
System of the ABC Plan (SIGABC), Rural Credit and Proagro Operations System (Sicor), and the Multi-
Institutional Platform for Monitoring Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction in Agriculture (ABC Platform).
It will be responsible for consolidating and systematizing the results of the ABC Plan implementation.

The SIGABC is the system for the governance and management of actions in progress to implement
the ABC Plan. Coordinated by MAPA, it registers the results of the actions of dissemination, training,
implementation of Technological Reference Units (URTs) and/or Test and Demonstration Units (UTDs),
and data related to financial credit agreements granted by the banking system that implements the line
of credit designed for the ABC Plan, among others. The implementation data for the ABC Program will
be extracted from the Sicor. This is the credit facility designed to support the adoption of technologies
in the ABC Plan, through borrowing activities (credit contracts) by rural producers.

The ABC Platform is the MRV instrument instituted in the context of the ABC Plan. It aims at
developing and validating a broad and integrated identification, qualification, and monitoring system
towards the adoption of technologies by the ABC Plan and their contribution to GHG mitigation.
The assessment methodologies follow international GHG emissions monitoring protocols and the
guidelines issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), together with national
scientific data at the state, municipal, or biome levels.

90 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

 Consolidated data from the ABC Platform, SIGABC, and Sicor/ABC Program will be consolidated
by the SIN-ABC and submitted to the Technical Committee for Monitoring the Sector Plan for the
Consolidation of a Low Carbon Economy in Agriculture, in the monitoring and evaluation actions of the
ABC Plan (CTABC) to be further evaluated together with the stakeholders, that comprise the CTABC under
a draft decree. The results officially approved by CTABC are submitted to the National Coordination of
the ABC Plan (CENABC), located within the MAPA, which is responsible for the official disclosure of the
results achieved by the Brazilian agricultural sector in its efforts to control GHG emissions, adapt to
climate change, and contribute to the achievement of Brazilian commitments to the UNFCCC.

6.2 NATIONAL EMISSIONS REGISTRY SYSTEM - SIRENE

The National Emissions Registry System (SIRENE)32 has been recognized by the Government
as the domestic emissions MRV, and was established as an official instrument for the dissemination
of the results of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions33. As reported in the previous BURs34, the
Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovations (MCTI) developed this system to protect information
and accessibility to the results of the National Inventory of Anthropogenic Emissions by Sources and
Removals by Sinks of Greenhouse Gases not Controlled by the Montreal Protocol.

The MCTI is responsible for coordinating, managing and maintaining SIRENE, and it has sought
to improve the system. The layout of this public platform has undergone improvements in order to
make it more user-friendly and accessible. In addition, results of scenarios up to 2050 and of emissions
by type of technology for key sectors have been made available at SIRENE, including information
on financial investments, lifespan, and emission reduction potential. Additional and more complex
improvements related to the system’s development for the analysis of indicators and inclusion of
additional data are underway. However, given the significant volume of information to be processed
and the effort required to develop IT solutions appropriately, this stage is expected to be completed
in the long term.

Although the implementation of these improvement measures is part of a phased approach,

it provides a positive contribution to the operation of the current system. Thus, SIRENE continues to
be accessed by a diverse audience, primarily for academic use. In addition, the relevance of SIRENE
is recognized for supporting government agencies in monitoring trends in emissions and for the
development of studies on mitigation.

32
SIRENE, go to: http://sirene.mctic.gov.br
33
Decree No. 9,172/2017
34
More information on SIRENE’s mission and scope is presented in the Second and Third Biennial Update Reports.

INFORMATION ON THE DESCRIPTION OF DOMESTIC MRV 91

(MEASUREMENT, REPORTING AND VERIFICATION) ARRANGEMENTS
APPENDIX I
HISTORICAL
SERIES OF
GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS
 CO2
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Gg
Total CO2 972,418 851,230 990,268 1,058,595 1,068,291 2,037,774 1,410,890 1,135,368 1,392,712 1,395,241 1,465,624 1,467,982 1,676,706 2,550,817 2,757,344 1,812,458 1,426,141 1,162,334 1,284,028 676,670 690,476 625,872 531,679 747,934 645,232 729,494 747,085
Energy 169,985 175,607 179,327 185,011 193,669 208,832 224,595 239,097 248,685 260,220 267,057 276,281 273,578 267,928 282,615 291,019 296,083 309,501 328,441 316,368 348,883 363,372 396,547 429,805 454,783 430,796 399,798
Fuel Combustion 162,431 168,246 171,882 177,435 185,665 201,318 216,774 230,493 239,222 250,097 256,320 264,560 262,360 256,729 271,775 277,142 283,201 296,032 314,234 297,934 333,669 349,252 381,786 413,171 437,141 413,192 382,293
Energy Subsector 21,271 20,860 22,802 22,867 23,841 25,281 27,799 31,218 32,221 39,121 40,484 44,838 39,777 39,450 45,372 47,400 47,967 47,494 58,435 47,617 58,859 53,744 70,114 93,517 111,089 105,577 81,643
Industrial Subsector 35,558 37,042 37,612 38,308 39,443 42,776 47,601 50,482 51,352 54,785 58,419 57,515 57,852 55,628 56,346 59,551 60,174 66,089 66,230 63,276 68,977 73,712 72,448 73,487 73,654 70,136 64,662
Iron and Steel 4,436 4,606 4,905 5,154 5,423 5,388 5,352 5,201 4,594 4,302 4,657 4,510 4,759 4,891 4,975 5,526 5,491 6,012 5,811 4,543 5,642 5,482 5,639 5,552 5,671 5,601 5,207
Chemical Industry 8,606 8,811 9,080 8,578 9,114 10,057 11,493 13,352 12,343 13,547 13,938 13,926 14,157 13,503 14,320 14,479 14,880 15,598 14,283 14,446 13,847 14,479 14,014 13,576 12,868 13,188 12,938
Other Industries 22,516 23,625 23,627 24,576 24,906 27,331 30,756 31,929 34,415 36,936 39,824 39,079 38,936 37,234 37,051 39,546 39,803 44,479 46,136 44,287 49,488 53,751 52,795 54,359 55,115 51,347 46,517
Transport Subsector 79,338 83,405 83,708 86,899 91,283 100,457 107,864 114,496 121,389 120,217 121,748 124,867 128,029 127,081 135,200 135,991 140,648 146,421 151,984 150,448 168,598 184,788 201,605 208,223 213,670 198,857 200,311
Civil Aviation 4,232 4,606 3,854 4,180 4,446 4,732 4,509 5,324 5,857 6,017 6,206 6,626 6,677 5,871 6,193 6,316 6,563 7,220 7,325 8,330 9,751 10,863 11,218 10,978 11,344 11,696 12,074
Road Transportation 70,094 73,931 74,786 77,159 82,058 90,916 97,772 105,030 111,067 109,634 111,337 113,548 115,889 116,036 123,083 123,519 127,773 131,881 136,953 134,811 151,497 166,726 183,199 190,075 194,611 181,257 183,118
Other Transportation 5,012 4,868 5,068 5,560 4,779 4,809 5,583 4,142 4,465 4,566 4,205 4,693 5,463 5,174 5,924 6,156 6,312 7,320 7,706 7,307 7,350 7,199 7,188 7,170 7,715 5,904 5,119
Residential Subsector 13,842 14,220 14,717 15,257 15,239 15,942 16,598 16,619 16,760 17,095 17,179 17,247 16,675 15,532 15,863 15,591 15,616 16,123 16,530 16,738 17,249 17,487 17,598 17,994 18,002 18,021 18,209
Agriculture Subsector 9,846 10,272 10,569 11,676 12,332 13,222 13,803 14,342 13,824 14,496 14,152 15,579 15,207 15,291 15,075 14,964 15,162 16,096 17,478 16,790 17,348 16,816 17,490 17,520 18,225 18,370 15,232
Other Sectors 2,576 2,447 2,474 2,428 3,527 3,640 3,109 3,336 3,676 4,383 4,338 4,514 4,820 3,747 3,919 3,645 3,634 3,809 3,577 3,065 2,638 2,705 2,531 2,430 2,501 2,231 2,236
Fugitive Emissions 7,554 7,361 7,445 7,576 8,004 7,514 7,821 8,604 9,463 10,123 10,737 11,721 11,218 11,199 10,840 13,877 12,882 13,469 14,207 18,434 15,214 14,120 14,761 16,634 17,642 17,604 17,505
Coal Mining 1,353 1,316 1,200 1,247 1,348 920 654 902 1,004 1,150 1,291 1,936 1,151 1,208 1,429 1,381 1,246 1,510 1,658 1,758 1,846 1,506 1,372 2,006 1,901 1,822 2,062
Extraction and
Transportation 6,201 6,045 6,245 6,329 6,656 6,594 7,167 7,702 8,459 8,973 9,446 9,785 10,067 9,991 9,411 12,496 11,636 11,959 12,549 16,676 13,368 12,614 13,389 14,628 15,741 15,782 15,443
of Oil and Natural
Gas
Industrial Processes 43,551 49,037 47,440 50,584 51,276 54,373 57,767 60,268 61,490 60,214 64,314 61,836 64,282 64,956 67,118 65,750 65,238 71,166 73,490 64,844 80,787 86,107 86,604 86,836 86,680 84,853 78,094
Cement Production 11,062 11,776 9,770 10,164 10,086 11,528 13,884 15,267 16,175 16,439 16,047 15,227 14,390 13,096 13,273 14,349 15,440 17,200 18,884 19,031 21,288 22,845 24,998 26,652 26,908 25,082 22,415
Lime Production 3,688 3,755 3,948 4,241 4,098 4,104 4,248 4,338 4,141 4,352 5,008 4,811 4,956 5,064 5,505 5,356 5,410 5,666 5,690 5,060 5,950 6,337 6,403 6,486 6,278 6,392 6,392
Ammonia Production 1,683 1,478 1,516 1,684 1,689 1,785 1,754 1,829 1,718 1,943 1,663 1,396 1,567 1,690 1,934 1,922 1,968 1,866 1,811 1,576 1,739 1,995 1,758 1,805 1,805 1,805 1,805
Iron and Steel 21,601 26,118 26,417 28,048 29,152 29,886 30,418 31,756 32,272 30,313 34,052 33,403 35,788 36,700 37,574 35,349 33,916 37,136 37,440 29,828 38,361 41,594 40,189 39,177 39,833 41,064 37,133
Production
Ferroalloy Production 116 119 197 191 178 202 223 167 562 451 512 575 534 922 938 932 942 1,080 1,142 1,018 1,195 1,070 1,044 957 891 800 784
Non-Ferrous Metals
Production, 897 857 803 1,518 1,279 1,749 2,109 1,378 1,127 1,217 1,462 1,319 1,436 1,622 1,685 1,749 1,798 2,003 1,778 1,882 4,332 5,949 5,857 5,636 5,544 4,665 4,713
except Aluminum
Aluminum 1,574 1,901 2,011 1,946 1,955 1,965 1,981 1,975 2,007 2,079 2,116 1,879 2,176 2,198 2,408 2,472 2,646 2,739 2,753 2,544 2,543 2,375 2,378 2,156 1,589 1,281 1,321
Production
Other Industries 2,930 3,033 2,778 2,792 2,839 3,154 3,150 3,558 3,488 3,420 3,454 3,226 3,435 3,664 3,801 3,621 3,118 3,476 3,992 3,905 5,379 3,942 3,977 3,967 3,832 3,764 3,531
Land Use, Land-Use 758,863 626,555 763,447 822,939 823,280 1,774,491 1,128,450 835,925 1,082,453 1,074,719 1,134,158 1,129,770 1,338,747 2,217,816 2,407,491 1,455,561 1,064,684 781,512 881,938 295,290 260,631 176,207 48,333 231,089 103,556 213,623 268,962
Change and Forestry
Land-Use Change 753,760 621,836 756,667 814,289 814,289 1,769,096 1,121,579 828,419 1,075,353 1,067,985 1,125,441 1,121,816 1,328,941 2,206,172 2,395,910 1,448,087 1,057,270 771,761 871,390 286,895­ 250,207 163,292 33,370 215,516 87,331 200,141 254,337
Amazon Biome 437,574 297,413 440,481 498,103 498,103 1,459,071 811,554 518,394 765,328 757,960 815,416 811,791 1,018,916 1,638,185 1,827,923 1,128,545 738,993 530,643 630,272 199,576 162,888 89,543 -56,903 47,758 -21,937 72,813 206,494
Cerrado Biome 241,511 241,511 241,511 241,511 241,511 212,958 212,958 212,958 212,958 212,958 212,958 212,958 212,958 474,641 474,641 226,196 226,196 149,037 149,037 72,638 72,638 61,902 61,902 135,258 88,670 106,382 4,601
Other Biomes 74,675 82,912 74,675 74,675 74,675 97,067 97,067 97,067 97,067 97,067 97,067 97,067 97,067 93,346 93,346 93,346 92,081 92,081 92,081 14,681 14,681 11,847 28,371 32,500 20,598 20,946 43,242
5,103 4,719 6,780 8,650 8,991 5,395 6,871 7,506 7,100 6,734 8,717 7,954 9,806 11,644 11,581 7,474 7,414 9,751 10,548 8,395 10,424 12,915 14,963 15,573 16,225 13,482 14,625

APPENDIX I: HISTORICAL SERIES OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Liming
Waste Treatment 19 31 54 61 66 78 78 78 84 88 95 95 99 117 120 128 136 155 159 168 175 186 195 204 213 222 231
Memory only items:
International Bunkers 6,086 5,584 6,239 6,914 7,298 8,667 10,077 10,835 12,105 13,881 13,639 15,545 15,823 14,094 14,362 14,766 15,150 16,347 19,998 15,461 18,550 20,076 19,049 17,834 18,133 20,091 17.133
International Aviation 4,366 3,147 3,610 3,619 3,539 4,520 5,541 5,911 6,621 5,397 4,626 5,388 4,381 4,035 4,303 4,707 4,543 4,936 5,675 5,167 5,784 6,410 6,896 6,972 7,006 6,816 6.194

93
International Water- 1,720 2,437 2,629 3,295 3,759 4,147 4,536 4,924 5,484 8,484 9,013 10,157 11,442 10,059 10,059 10,059 10,607 11,411 14,323 10,294 12,766 13,666 12,153 10,862 11,127 13,275 10.919
borne Navigation
CO2 Emissions from 166,035 166,454 165,295 163,296 173,888 168,791 171,036 177,229 177,266 180,877 166,435 174,763 190,567 207,531 219,888 228,295 242,178 263,113 285,378 281,439 302,848 287,410 290,772 303,834 312,226 324,299 321.562
Biomass
94
CH4
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Gg
Total CH4 12,086.6 12,285.3 12,676.9 12,802.0 13,024.8 14,523.8 13,366.2 13,229.1 13,692.8 13,917.9 14,327.6 14,785.0 15,530.2 17,173.2 18,032.7 17,281.0 16,597.0 15,770.2 16,167.8 15,850.4 16,100.0 16,350.0 16,110.1 16,599.5 16,622.0 16,972.5 17,268.9
Energy 543.7 546.8 531.5 494.9 489.5 467.4 456.7 469.3 479.3 491.1 503.6 533.6 563.5 559.2 596.0 675.5 641.0 628.7 632.8 680.6 620.6 572.7 584.0 599.7 622.0 624.9 604.9
Fuel Combustion 453.2 452.3 446.5 406.2 403.7 381.9 381.4 383.2 385.1 388.9 384.6 394.4 431.7 451.4 462.2 469.3 471.7 459.5 459.9 440.6 439.7 408.8 409.9 383.2 398.3 402.5 386.3
Energy Subsector 25.6 24.7 23.0 23.3 24.4 23.1 22.5 23.4 21.1 21.4 20.8 20.7 22.3 25.8 28.4 29.2 29.9 32.6 36.7 30.3 34.6 32.1 33.1 36.3 37.7 38.6 34.9
Industrial Subsector 15.7 14.8 15.3 15.5 17.7 18.1 19.2 19.3 20.5 21.8 19.9 22.1 23.9 26.0 27.9 28.4 31.7 32.9 32.9 31.9 34.3 35.4 36.1 35.3 33.8 32.6 34.6
Iron and Steel 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Other Industries 15.5 14.6 15.1 15.3 17.5 17.9 19.0 19.1 20.4 21.6 19.7 21.9 23.7 25.8 27.7 28.2 31.5 32.7 32.7 31.7 34.0 35.2 35.9 35.1 33.6 32.4 34.4
Residential Subsector 70.4 74.5 72.4 72.4 75.1 79.6 83.8 81.8 79.9 74.5 67.3 63.8 64.7 65.1 66.2 65.1 61.6 62.4 61.3 56.6 58.4 59.7 60.6 59.3 58.9 53.8 52.0
Agriculture Subsector 318.4 316.8 316.9 277.4 269.4 243.7 238.6 241.5 247.2 255.3 261.5 272.8 304.9 316.7 321.1 327.6 329.0 311.1 307.1 300.8 290.1 259.7 258.4 229.0 244.2 252.9 241.9
Other Sectors 23.1 21.5 18.9 17.6 17.1 17.4 17.3 17.2 16.4 15.9 15.1 15.0 15.9 17.8 18.6 19.0 19.5 20.5 21.9 21.0 22.3 21.9 21.7 23.3 23.7 24.6 22.9
Fugitive Emissions 90.5 94.5 85.0 88.7 85.8 85.5 75.3 86.1 94.2 102.2 119.0 139.2 131.8 107.8 133.8 206.2 169.3 169.2 172.9 240.0 180.9 163.9 174.1 216.5 223.7 222.4 218.6
Coal Mining 49.7 54.3 44.2 47.0 42.4 41.1 25.5 32.6 33.0 34.0 43.3 60.0 44.0 41.0 48.0 49.1 48.3 54.9 58.6 52.3 39.2 43.4 41.0 60.1 54.2 51.5 56.8
Extraction and
Transportation of Oil 40.8 40.2 40.8 41.7 43.4 44.4 49.8 53.5 61.2 68.2 75.7 79.2 87.8 66.8 85.8 157.1 121.0 114.3 114.3 187.7 141.7 120.5 133.1 156.4 169.5 170.9 161.8
and Natural Gas

FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Industrial Processes and
Product Use (IPPU) 47.1 42.1 39.6 43.0 44.2 41.1 37.9 38.2 36.0 40.0 43.7 40.0 41.4 47.8 55.5 54.9 56.4 58.3 56.4 39.2 45.3 47.2 44.0 41.6 41.0 40.7 36.4

Chemical Industry 5.1 5.1 5.3 5.9 6.5 6.4 6.4 7.3 7.8 8.2 8.9 8.5 8.2 8.8 9.2 9.2 12.2 12.5 11.3 11.7 11.6 12.9 11.2 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7
Metals Production 42.0 37.0 34.3 37.1 37.7 34.7 31.5 30.9 28.2 31.8 34.8 31.5 33.2 39.0 46.3 45.7 44.2 45.8 45.1 27.5 33.7 34.3 32.8 29.9 29.3 29.0 24.7
Agriculture 9,192.1 9,484.5 9,651.2 9,694.6 9,880.1 10,070.0 9,742.2 9,887.9 9,963.9 10,111.9 10,382.3 10,757.6 11,121.3 11,666.8 12,195.7 12,357.7 12,293.0 11,707.1 11,955.4 12,166.2 12,415.6 12,659.5 12,511.7 12,613.8 12,691.6 12,914.4 13,087.1
Enteric Fermentation 8,223.9 8,470.3 8,596.8 8,625.8 8,786.7 8,957.1 8,738.7 8,899.2 8,979.5 9,057.6 9,349.5 9,713.3 10,050.1 10,574.9 11,049.3 11,213.8 11,162.0 10,573.0 10,730.3 10,908.0 11,158.0 11,362.6 11,287.7 11,383.9 11,440.8 11,620.1 11,822.9
Cattle 7,808.9 8,049.5 8,175.2 8,218.7 8,370.5 8,534.3 8,413.3 8,572.9 8,650.5 8,722.2 9,005.8 9,368.0 9,708.9 10,228.3 10,698.6 10,855.7 10,801.9 10,220.4 10,376.3 10,555.6 10,798.4 10,996.1 10,934.5 11,027.3 11,079.9 11,247.8 11,447.4
Dairy Cattle 1,197.7 1,245.1 1,279.3 1,258.3 1,262.8 1,297.1 1,081.0 1,123.9 1,136.7 1,143.1 1,177.9 1,206.7 1,236.6 1,268.8 1,320.5 1,371.4 1,396.3 1,296.8 1,331.4 1,384.6 1,424.0 1,457.5 1,435.1 1,461.4 1,475.9 1,410.2 1,295.9
Beef Cattle 6,611.2 6,804.4 6,895.9 6,960.4 7,107.7 7,237.2 7,332.3 7,449.0 7,513.8 7,579.1 7,827.9 8,161.3 8,472.3 8,959.5 9,378.1 9,484.3 9,405.6 8,923.6 9,044.9 9,171.0 9,374.4 9,538.6 9,499.4 9,565.9 9,604.0 9,837.6 10,151.5
Other Animals 415.0 420.8 421.6 407.1 416.2 422.8 325.4 326.3 329.0 335.4 343.7 345.3 341.2 346.6 350.7 358.1 360.1 352.6 354.0 352.4 359.6 366.5 353.2 356.6 360.9 372.3 375.5
Manure Management 421.6 435.5 443.0 447.1 457.9 471.6 431.0 442.3 448.8 461.1 479.7 500.5 500.6 519.6 533.0 543.9 545.6 558.0 575.4 593.3 608.1 618.6 610.9 603.1 616.2 631.8 630.9
Cattle 191.2 197.6 200.4 201.2 204.6 208.7 200.3 204.7 207.0 209.0 215.9 224.4 223.6 235.9 248.5 254.0 252.9 245.3 249.0 253.4 258.7 263.0 261.0 262.0 263.1 265.6 267.6
Dairy Cattle 35.9 37.5 38.4 37.7 37.6 38.5 31.1 32.6 33.0 33.2 34.1 34.7 35.5 36.4 38.5 39.7 40.4 40.6 41.5 43.1 44.0 44.6 43.7 43.9 44.2 41.9 38.3
Beef Cattle 155.3 160.1 162.0 163.5 167.0 170.2 169.2 172.1 174.0 175.8 181.8 189.7 188.1 199.5 210.0 214.3 212.5 204.7 207.5 210.3 214.7 218.4 217.3 218.1 218.9 223.7 229.3
Swine 159.5 161.8 161.9 164.4 169.4 173.7 146.4 149.1 152.2 158.6 166.5 174.5 176.7 180.5 178.4 178.7 179.8 188.5 196.0 207.2 214.9 218.4 215.9 205.8 212.1 227.1 223.8
Poultry 48.4 53.3 57.8 59.2 61.3 66.3 65.9 69.9 70.9 74.6 78.1 82.4 81.2 83.8 86.6 91.5 93.2 104.9 111.2 113.7 115.3 117.8 115.3 116.4 121.9 119.6 119.8
Other Animals 22.5 22.8 22.9 22.3 22.6 22.9 18.4 18.6 18.7 18.9 19.2 19.2 19.1 19.4 19.5 19.7 19.7 19.3 19.2 19.0 19.2 19.4 18.7 18.9 19.1 19.5 19.7
Rice Cultivations 440.1 473.3 503.0 525.2 520.8 522.6 456.0 430.3 416.2 479.9 448.1 431.7 451.4 440.6 477.3 463.7 438.8 423.5 474.2 486.0 464.2 502.7 448.3 451.5 462.5 491.7 459.9
Burning of Crop Residues 106.5 105.4 108.4 96.5 114.7 118.7 116.5 116.1 119.4 113.3 105.0 112.1 119.2 131.7 136.1 136.3 146.6 152.6 175.5 178.9 185.3 175.6 164.8 175.3 172.1 170.8 173.4
Land Use, Land-Use 1,054.6 914.5 1,105.0 1,174.1 1,164.9 2,442.4 1,568.1 1.213.5 1,539.8 1,532.5 1,599.2 1,600.6 1,869.8 2,885.0 3,128.2 2,067.4 1,415.7 1,127.9 1,242.0 659.0 606.9 539.0 393.9 567.6 452.4 567.7 672.0
Change and Forestry
Waste Treatment 1,249.1 1,297.4 1,349.6 1,395.4 1,446.1 1,502.9 1,561.3 1.620.2 1,673.8 1,742.4 1,798.8 1,853.2 1,934.2 2,014.4 2,057.3 2,125.5 2,190.9 2,248.2 2,281.2 2,305.4 2,411.6 2,531.6 2,576.5 2,776.8 2,815.0 2.824.8 2,868.5
Solid Waste 898.9 929.4 961.9 992.5 1,023.6 1,052.9 1,084.3 1,117.4 1,147.3 1,177.3 1,204.3 1,233.6 1,266.1 1,295.3 1,280.1 1,299.2 1,316.8 1,291.3 1,249.8 1,234.3 1,268.5 1,349.3 1,365.5 1,462.2 1,449.8 1,448.8 1,497.1
Wastewater 350.2 368.0 387.7 402.9 422.5 450.0 477.0 502.8 526.5 565.1 594.5 619.6 668.1 719.1 777.2 826.3 874.1 956.9 1,031.4 1,071.1 1,143.1 1,182.3 1,211.0 1,314.6 1,365.2 1,376.0 1,371.4
Industrial 82.6 94.3 107.3 115.3 126.9 145.7 163.1 176.2 186.0 209.6 222.8 235.6 271.5 309.6 354.3 389.7 423.4 491.8 550.8 574.6 630.3 665.1 689.6 774.2 820.1 826.4 817.4
Domestic 267.6 273.7 280.4 287.6 295.6 304.3 313.9 326.6 340.5 355.5 371.7 384.0 396.6 409.5 422.9 436.6 450.7 465.1 480.6 496.5 512.8 517.2 521.4 540.4 545.1 549.6 554.0
Memory only items:
International Bunkers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1
International Water- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1
borne Navigation
 N2O
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Gg

Total N2O 377.04 383.96 397.34 406.54 418.34 462.80 412.37 412.11 437.52 440.49 459.84 468.01 497.48 568.55 597.59 559.14 546.21 527.05 534.15 516.16 535.52 555.79 548.87 570.25 576.67 577.44 597.16
Energy 14.36 14.38 14.23 14.14 14.83 15.20 15.95 16.96 17.66 18.20 18.18 19.09 20.65 21.74 23.19 23.93 24.70 26.04 27.51 26.66 29.25 29.64 31.11 32.16 33.29 32.70 32.25
Fuel Combustion 14.30 14.33 14.17 14.08 14.77 15.14 15.88 16.89 17.58 18.11 18.07 18.98 20.53 21.62 23.08 23.72 24.54 25.89 27.34 26.37 29.04 29.46 30.95 31.96 33.06 32.46 32.00
Industrial Subsector 2.54 2.53 2.59 2.65 2.97 2.97 3.02 3.15 3.42 3.60 3.33 3.60 3.82 4.07 4.33 4.42 4.90 5.18 5.19 5.27 5.73 5.74 5.91 5.88 5.71 5.57 5.89
Transport Subsector 4.02 4.17 4.15 4.27 4.57 5.30 6.05 6.73 7.42 7.61 7.86 8.30 9.11 9.34 10.08 10.43 10.63 11.45 12.16 12.21 13.74 14.86 15.95 16.66 17.44 16.75 16.89
Other Sectors 7.74 7.63 7.43 7.16 7.23 6.87 6.81 7.01 6.74 6.90 6.88 7.08 7.60 8.21 8.67 8.87 9.01 9.26 9.99 8.89 9.57 8.86 9.09 9.42 9.91 10.14 9.22
Fugitive Emissions 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.21 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.29 0.21 0.18 0.16 0.20 0.23 0.24 0.25
Industrial Processes 11.83 14.56 13.60 17.28 17.47 18.57 14.67 13.17 20.07 20.02 21.09 17.33 21.44 19.90 27.42 24.22 26.12 4.36 3.70 1.96 2.15 2.19 1.86 1.81 2.02 1.86 1.71
Chemical Industry 10.69 13.46 12.55 16.14 16.31 17.45 13.62 12.12 19.07 18.98 19.94 16.25 20.29 18.62 25.99 22.83 24.78 2.94 2.28 1.01 0.93 0.93 0.63 0.66 0.88 0.71 0.70
Nitric Acid Production 1.81 1.93 1.89 2.00 2.01 2.05 2.07 2.12 2.06 2.06 2.09 2.06 2.14 2.14 2.21 2.24 2.20 2.07 1.58 0.79 0.80 0.75 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51
Adipic Acid Production 8.63 11.25 10.41 13.84 13.99 15.08 11.22 9.66 16.75 16.62 17.51 13.90 17.80 16.19 23.48 20.29 22.31 0.57 0.37 0.14 0.13 0.18 0.12 0.14 0.36 0.20 0.19
Other productions 0.25 0.28 0.25 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.26 0.30 0.34 0.29 0.35 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.08 - - - - - - -
Metals Production 1.14 1.10 1.05 1.14 1.16 1.12 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.04 1.15 1.08 1.15 1.28 1.43 1.39 1.34 1.42 1.42 0.95 1.22 1.26 1.23 1.15 1.14 1.15 1.01
Agriculture 303.54 311.28 320.00 323.47 334.66 340.15 318.97 329.47 337.23 339.71 355.93 366.75 382.25 412.38 425.07 428.97 433.03 445.43 448.06 453.87 472.08 494.38 491.10 503.48 513.48 510.67 530.27
Manure Management 10.03 10.57 10.93 10.92 11.21 11.48 10.61 10.89 10.87 11.16 11.49 11.88 11.79 12.16 12.44 12.82 12.93 13.70 14.31 14.65 14.83 15.16 14.95 14.95 15.52 15.74 15.82
Cattle 2.90 2.96 3.00 3.01 3.04 3.07 2.83 2.89 2.92 2.93 2.98 3.05 3.13 3.22 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.27 3.33 3.40 3.46 3.53 3.51 3.55 3.53 3.51 3.48
Swine 2.43 2.47 2.49 2.43 2.48 2.53 1.94 1.97 1.99 2.04 2.06 2.11 2.02 2.04 2.12 2.17 2.20 2.22 2.24 2.30 2.35 2.36 2.32 2.22 2.29 2.42 2.40
Poultry 4.40 4.83 5.13 5.18 5.39 5.58 5.60 5.79 5.72 5.95 6.20 6.47 6.40 6.65 6.78 7.11 7.19 7.97 8.50 8.71 8.78 9.02 8.88 8.94 9.46 9.56 9.69
Other Animals 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25
Agricultural Soils 290.75 297.98 306.26 310.05 320.48 325.59 305.34 315.57 323.27 325.61 341.72 351.96 367.37 396.81 409.10 412.62 416.30 427.77 429.20 434.58 452.45 474.67 471.88 483.99 493.50 490.50 509.95
Direct Emissions 184.07 188.19 193.71 195.05 201.60 205.28 191.67 198.00 202.19 204.21 213.85 221.03 230.01 247.99 255.29 257.09 259.54 266.16 269.13 271.45 282.31 294.97 292.69 300.98 306.42 307.71 314.05
Animals on Pasture 129.73 133.73 135.65 135.36 137.50 140.20 130.03 132.95 134.44 135.85 140.12 144.62 150.82 158.19 164.86 167.45 166.82 162.37 164.36 166.83 170.24 172.59 170.44 170.89 171.68 172.83 173.01
Synthetic Fertilizers 9.81 9.79 10.94 12.52 14.74 14.27 14.98 16.23 18.06 17.16 21.28 20.70 23.09 27.95 28.31 27.51 28.83 34.64 31.33 32.11 35.74 42.14 43.70 46.26 48.19 44.31 54.25
Organic Fertilizers 14.90 15.31 15.77 15.63 15.87 16.40 14.76 15.30 15.56 15.65 15.88 16.00 16.12 16.64 17.30 17.81 18.14 18.94 20.15 21.30 21.33 21.88 21.01 20.85 21.92 22.41 22.62
Crop Residues 15.32 14.99 16.92 17.05 18.94 19.80 17.23 18.79 19.34 20.70 21.66 24.74 24.95 30.12 29.67 29.11 30.48 34.88 37.90 35.76 39.49 42.79 41.91 47.29 48.88 52.35 48.30
Organic Soils 14.31 14.37 14.43 14.49 14.55 14.61 14.67 14.73 14.79 14.85 14.91 14.97 15.03 15.09 15.15 15.21 15.27 15.33 15.39 15.45 15.51 15.57 15.63 15.69 15.75 15.81 15.87
Indirect Emissions 106.68 109.79 112.55 115.00 118.88 120.31 113.67 117.57 121.08 121.40 127.87 130.93 137.36 148.82 153.81 155.53 156.76 161.61 160.07 163.13 170.14 179.70 179.19 183.01 187.08 182.79 195.90
Burning of Crop Residues 2.76 2.73 2.81 2.50 2.97 3.08 3.02 3.01 3.09 2.94 2.72 2.91 3.09 3.41 3.53 3.53 3.80 3.96 4.55 4.64 4.80 4.55 4.27 4.54 4.46 4.43 4.50
Land Use, Land-Use 42.97 39.31 44.98 47.02 46.65 84.05 57.85 47.39 57.23 57.02 58.96 59.05 67.06 108.15 115.42 75.41 55.64 44.39 47.92 26.59 24.83 22.31 17.47 25.20 20.22 24.48 25.14
Change and Forestry
Waste Treatment 4.34 4.43 4.53 4.63 4.73 4.83 4.93 5.12 5.33 5.54 5.68 5.79 6.08 6.38 6.49 6.61 6.72 6.83 6.96 7.08 7.21 7.27 7.33 7.60 7.66 7.73 7.79
Memory only items:
International Bunkers 0.14 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.27 0.26 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.32 0.27 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.33 0.28
International Aviation 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.18
International Water- 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.16 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.14 0.10
borne Navigation

APPENDIX I: HISTORICAL SERIES OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

95
96
CO
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Gg
Total CO 32,187.8 30,190.7 32,899.9 33,500.7 34,129.4 53,651.0 40,167.3 34,472.4 39,290.1 38,723.0 38,969.2 38,814.7 43,363.4 61,921.1 66,172.6 47,996.3 37,994.7 33,284.3 35,893.2 25,185.0 24,979.4 23,356.0 20,576.5 23,990.0 21,903.1 23,649.1 24,442.7
Energy 9,025.3 9,201.1 8,927.8 8,817.2 8,974.6 8,915.5 9,044.5 8,796.7 8,519.7 8,197.0 7,647.9 7,289.1 7,418.4 7,547.9 7,752.3 7,656.1 7,416.9 7,450.0 7,504.8 6,836.8 7,111.2 6,948.7 6,907.7 6,819.2 6,952.9 6,799.4 6,504.8
Fuel Combustion 9,025.3 9,201.1 8,927.8 8,817.2 8,974.6 8,915.5 9,044.5 8,796.7 8,519,7 8,197.0 7,647.9 7,289.1 7,418.4 7,547.9 7,752.3 7,656.1 7,416.9 7,450.0 7,504.8 6,836.8 7,111.2 6,948.7 6,907.7 6,819.2 6,952.9 6,799.4 6,504.8
Energy Subsector 1,402.4 1,308.2 1,215.1 1,250,3 1,292.7 1,208.7 1,149.1 1,171.6 1,065.3 1,099,2 1,104.7 1,083.8 1,149.0 1,347.9 1,499.3 1,528.7 1,536.7 1,653.7 1,779.1 1,415.0 1,620.1 1,570.2 1,587.8 1,665.0 1,713.4 1,745.1 1,600.7
Industrial Subsector 758.1 749.5 735.6 792.2 837.7 815.1 858.3 852.2 916.2 998.9 1,036.8 1,035.1 1,059.6 1,160.2 1,223.3 1,283.5 1,363.3 1,448.5 1,541.4 1,558.8 1,708.8 1,770.6 1,760.8 1,839.9 1,916.0 1,929.9 1,962.5
Iron and Steel 2.5 2.7 2.8 4.0 3.2 3.2 4.8 6.4 6.2 7.1 8.2 7.3 8.7 9.8 11.0 11.4 11.5 12.2 12.3 9.5 11.4 10.8 10.7 10.2 9.8 9.3 8.9
Food and Beverages 182.3 185.7 170.6 172.0 178.1 175.8 179.7 179.3 186.7 191.9 187.5 189.8 191.8 192.5 200.3 204.8 214.8 223.8 230.5 236.8 260.9 263.6 268.2 262.0 256.1 247.1 252.9
Other Industries 573.3 561.1 562.2 616.2 656.4 636.1 673.8 666.5 723.3 799.9 841.1 838.0 859.1 957.9 1,012.0 1,067.3 1,137.0 1,212.5 1,298.6 1,312.5 1,436.5 1,496.2 1,481.9 1,567.7 1,650.1 1,673.5 1,700.7
Transport Subsector 5,331.2 5,619,4 5,463.0 5,430.4 5,534,6 5,698.3 5,868,7 5,590.4 5,336.0 4,861,4 4,242.7 3,852.6 3,749.5 3,516.9 3,483.9 3,268.1 2,934.4 2,834.3 2,675.5 2,379.7 2,348.3 2,310.1 2,265.8 2,151.0 2,081.7 1,841.1 1,727.5
Road Transportation 5,284.7 5,575,2 5,422.6 5,385.7 5,486,8 5,652.4 5,819,4 5,540.0 5,281.8 4,809,4 4,191.1 3,801.9 3,699.6 3,470.5 3,434.0 3,219.9 2,887.2 2,783.3 2,620.8 2,324.6 2,288.8 2,249.8 2,202.4 2,087.5 2,016.9 1,786.8 1,678.6
Other Transport 46.5 44.2 40.4 44.7 47.8 45.9 49.3 50.4 54.2 52.0 51.6 50.7 49.9 46.4 49.9 48.2 47.2 51.0 54.7 55.1 59.5 60.3 63.4 63.5 64.8 54.3 48.9
Residential Subsector 1,443.2 1,433.6 1,427.2 1,254,8 1,218.4 1,098.7 1,072.1 1,084.7 1,107.6 1,142.1 1,172.3 1,221.8 1,361.6 1,418.9 1,439.1 1,468.4 1,472.8 1,397.7 1,382.2 1,361.6 1,306.7 1,173.4 1,167.1 1,031.9 1,106.2 1,143.2 1,090.6
Other Sectors 90.4 90.4 86.9 89.5 91.2 94.7 96.3 97.8 94.6 95.4 91.4 95.8 98.7 104.0 106.7 107.4 109.7 115.8 126.6 121.7 127.3 124.4 126.2 131.4 135.6 140.1 123.5
Industrial Processes 900.8 810.4 759.8 819.3 834.0 777.5 714.0 706.3 651.9 722.6 788.1 721.3 761.3 884.0 1,034.9 1,019.6 994.4 1,034.8 1,024.8 663.6 809.6 825.0 795.1 735.1 719.7 717.4 625.0

FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Iron and Steel 775.0 669.2 628.1 686.0 708.1 655.9 577.1 602.5 557.1 622.3 674.4 635.8 660.1 743.0 885.7 864.9 833.9 862.8 846.8 506.3 633.2 659.0 630.8 576.0 566.1 572.5 482.2
Production
Ferroalloy Production 60.8 81.9 69.6 84.2 73.6 64.1 97.2 65.2 54.9 60.8 72.4 44.6 56.4 90.1 94.8 96.7 97.6 104.5 106.7 82.5 96.7 86.6 84.9 79.7 74.2 66.7 64.8
Production of Non- 44.4 36.1 36.2 21.8 22.8 27.5 8.4 6.5 5.6 2.4 3.1 3.0 3.5 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.5 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.9 6.0 6.5 6.5 6.7 5.6 5.4
ferrous Metals
Other productions 20.6 23.2 25.9 27.3 29.5 30.0 31.3 32.1 34.3 37.1 38.2 37.9 41.3 47.0 50.3 53.8 58.4 62.7 66.5 70.2 74.8 73.4 72.9 72.9 72.7 72.6 72.6
Agriculture 3,627.6 3,590.2 3,696.5 3,289.4 3,908.1 4,045.8 3,968.2 3,957.5 4,067.1 3,861.7 3,576.4 3,818.0 4,060.8 4,485.9 4,637.8 4,644.4 4,996.6 5,198.4 5,980.4 6,095.2 6,313.5 5,984.4 5,616.9 5,973.4 5,863.2 5,820.6 5,908.1
Burning of Cotton 128.4 114.8 80.0 31.9 16.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Residues
Burning of Sugarcane 3,499.2 3,475.4 3,616.5 3,257.5 3,891.3 4,045.8 3,968.2 3,957.5 4,067.1 3,861.7 3,576.4 3,818.0 4,060.8 4,485.9 4,637.8 4,644.4 4,996.6 5,198.4 5,980.4 6,095.2 6,313.5 5,984.4 5,616.9 5,973.4 5,863.2 5,820.6 5,908.1
Residues
Land Use, Land-Use 18,634.1 16,589.0 19,515.8 20,574.8 20,412.7 39,912.2 26,440.6 21,011.9 26,051.4 25,941.7 26,956.8 26,986.3 31,122.9 49,003.3 52,747.6 34,676.2 24,586.8 19,601.1 21,383.2 11,589.4 10,745.1 9,597.9 7,256.8 10,462.3 8,367.3 10,311.7 11,404.8
Change and Forestry
Memory only items:
International Bunkers 1.9 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.5 2.2 3.0 3.6 4.4 4.8 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.6 6.8 5.9 6.5 4.4 4.2 5.4 4.7 5.6 3.4
International Aviation 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2
International Water- 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.8 1.3 1.9 2.5 3.1 3.7 4.6 4.7 4.9 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.7 5.6 4.9 5.4 3.2 2.9 4.1 3.4 4.3 2.2
borne Navigation
 NOx
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Gg
Total NOx 2,262.7 2,304.7 2,385.2 2,453.4 2,530.3 2,927.9 2,824.8 2,819.3 2,977.6 3,046.7 3,032.1 3,073.4 3,156.1 3,645.9 3,813.5 3,355.6 3,200.4 3,171.0 3,359.6 2,989.7 3,078.0 3,022.4 3,054.5 3,245.4 3,234.9 3,090.8 2,860.4
Energy 1,591.7 1,656.5 1,688.2 1,745.2 1,806.4 1,904.6 2,017.9 2,091.6 2,157.5 2,226.8 2,198.2 2,233.5 2,236.5 2,196.6 2,293.6 2,292.7 2,294.6 2,385.0 2,518.3 2,400.5 2,498.1 2,473.4 2,566.2 2,648.7 2,703.4 2,513.2 2,319.4
Fuel Combustion 1,591.7 1,656.5 1,688.2 1,745.2 1,806.4 1,904.6 2,017.9 2,091.6 2,157.5 2,226.8 2,198.2 2,233.5 2,236.5 2,196.6 2,293.6 2,292.7 2,294.6 2,385.0 2,518.3 2,400.5 2,498.1 2,473.4 2,566.2 2,648.7 2,703.4 2,513.2 2,319.4
Energy Subsector 218.1 229.7 248.5 251.3 258.6 269.1 291.6 335.1 344.1 391.5 400.7 422.7 388.8 422.0 456.4 486.9 497.9 507.7 592.8 564.4 583.6 589.9 682.9 774.0 850.5 794.8 703.9
Industrial Subsector 134.8 138.4 140.9 146.1 159.5 169.3 179.7 192.3 200.3 216.8 221.5 221.7 225.9 228.0 234.9 241.9 254.1 276.8 270.4 269.8 287.2 301.2 304.0 308.9 307.2 296.5 290.9
Iron and Steel 10.4 11.1 12.3 12.9 13.3 12.3 10.7 11.5 10.4 10.4 11.1 10.5 10.8 10.6 10.6 12.1 11.8 11.9 11.4 9.8 12.0 11.9 12.3 11.9 12.2 11.5 11.4
Other Industries 124.4 127.3 128.6 133.2 146.2 157.0 169.0 180.8 189.9 206.4 210.4 211.2 215.1 217.4 224.3 229.8 242.3 264.9 259.0 260.0 275.2 289.3 291.7 297.0 295.0 285.0 279.5
Transport Subsector 1,087.5 1,132.3 1,140.0 1,177.7 1,208.2 1,277.8 1,353.8 1,364.4 1,417.6 1,414.2 1,377.8 1,375.8 1,408.3 1,333.7 1,390.2 1,354.2 1,330.3 1,377.6 1,411.2 1,329.2 1,384.0 1,345.5 1,334.9 1,322.1 1,290.6 1,161.4 1,102.7
Road 970.3 1,018.1 1,021.8 1,046.8 1,093.2 1,162.7 1,218.4 1,262.7 1,307.8 1,301.9 1,275.7 1,262.6 1,281.7 1,215.0 1,254.7 1,214.0 1,188.5 1,211.2 1,233.6 1,159.4 1,211.1 1,175.6 1,165.5 1,153.2 1,106.4 1,021.7 983.3
Transportation
Other Transport 117.2 114.2 118.2 130.9 115.0 115.1 135.4 101.7 109.8 112.3 102.1 113.2 126.6 118.7 135.5 140.2 141.8 166.4 177.6 169.8 172.9 169.9 169.4 168.9 184.2 139.7 119.4
Residential Subsector 29.2 29.3 29.6 27.8 27.4 26.3 26.5 26.8 27.2 27.9 28.5 29.2 30.6 30.6 31.1 31.3 31.3 30.8 31.0 30.9 30.6 29.1 29.1 27.6 28.7 29.1 28.6
Other Sectors 122.1 126.8 129.2 142.3 152.7 162.1 166.3 173.0 168.3 176.4 169.7 184.1 182.9 182.3 181.0 178.4 181.0 192.1 212.9 206.2 212.7 207.7 215.3 216.1 226.4 231.4 193.3
Industrial Processes 42.1 42.5 41.8 47.7 51.1 50.7 53.5 58.4 65.5 72.5 79.1 77.2 84.7 98.9 105.4 106.0 106.5 114.5 117.7 98.4 100.8 107.1 104.1 100.1 102.8 102.2 95.4
Metals Production 36.0 35.8 34.3 39.7 42.5 42.0 44.5 49.2 55.7 61.9 68.2 66.4 73.0 85.7 91.3 90.9 90.2 97.1 99.1 78.8 80.1 86.7 83.6 79.7 82.4 81.9 75.1
Other productions 6.1 6.7 7.5 8.0 8.6 8.7 9.0 9.2 9.8 10.6 10.9 10.8 11.7 13.2 14.1 15.1 16.3 17.4 18.6 19.6 20.7 20.4 20.5 20.4 20.4 20.3 20.3
Agriculture 98.6 97.5 100.5 89.4 106.2 109.9 107.8 107.5 110.5 104.9 97.2 103.8 110.3 121.9 126.0 126.2 135.8 141.3 162.5 165.6 171.6 162.6 152.6 162.3 159.3 158.2 160.5
Burning of Cotton 3.5 3.1 2.2 0.9 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Residues
Burning of 95.1 94.4 98.3 88.5 105.7 109.9 107.8 107.5 110.5 104.9 97.2 103.8 110.3 121.9 126.0 126.2 135.8 141.3 162.5 165.6 171.6 162.6 152.6 162.3 159.3 158.2 160.5
Sugarcane Residues
Land Use, Land-Use 530.3 508.2 554.7 571.1 566.6 862.7 645.6 561.8 644.1 642.5 657.6 658.9 724.6 1,228.5 1,288.5 830.7 663.5 530.2 561.1 325.2 307.5 279.3 231.6 334.3 269.4 317.2 285.1
Change and Forestry
Memory only items:
International Bunkers 12.5 8.1 8.8 11.0 9.6 16.1 22.5 28.8 35.2 41.9 51.4 53.1 55.1 48.9 49.0 49.1 49.9 53.3 63.6 55.2 61.6 38.2 35.2 47.8 40.0 49.6 27.3
International Aviation 1.3 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.9
International Water- 11.2 7.2 7.8 9.9 8.6 14.8 20.9 27.1 33.3 40.3 50.0 51.5 53.8 47.7 47.7 47.7 48.5 51.8 61.9 53.6 59.8 36.2 33.1 45.7 37.9 47.5 25.4
borne Navigation

APPENDIX I: HISTORICAL SERIES OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

97
98
NMVOC
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Gg
Total NMVOC 51,470.6 45,711.8 57,984.9 50,943.9 57,186.0 60,823.7 62,733.1 65,124.4 86,195.7 68,735.6 80,047.7 67,764.3 82,218.4 61,753.4 76,684.7 82,192.4 110,514.1 101,949.7 123,341.4 114,267.9 154,101.3 130,726.5 130,815.0 135,606.7 157,412.2 99,743.4 106,506.1
Energy 1,075.9 1,062.7 1,025.1 1,014.0 1,025.5 1,005.4 991.5 972.7 945.3 939.8 918.2 888.6 920.5 955.4 1.005.9 994.4 965.1 967.6 966.2 822.1 849.9 843.7 833.6 793.3 797.5 774.6 713.7
Fuel Combustion 1,075.9 1,062.7 1,025.1 1,014.0 1,025.5 1,005.4 991.5 972.7 945.3 939.8 918.2 888.6 920.5 955.4 1.005.9 994.4 965.1 967.6 966.2 822.1 849.9 843.7 833.6 793.3 797.5 774.6 713.7
Energy Subsector 337.6 299.9 276.0 289.2 293.9 271.6 243.9 238.1 216.8 232.7 249.6 234.3 245.3 287.8 330.9 329.1 323.0 333.0 337.8 228.4 251.8 263.5 255.3 239.0 237.1 235.3 203.1
Industrial Subsector 31.2 30.8 29.7 29.8 31.7 31.2 30.5 30.2 33.5 38.8 41.7 43.5 42.9 44.7 46.1 48.6 52.5 56.9 59.7 58.9 66.3 69.7 68.9 70.6 68.7 66.1 64.2
Iron and Steel 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4
Food and 9.2 9.4 8.9 8.9 9.4 9.2 9.4 9.4 9.9 10.2 9.7 10.0 10.3 10.4 10.9 11.1 11.9 12.6 12.8 13.2 14.5 14.6 15.0 14.7 14.2 13.7 14.3
Beverages
Other Industries 20.9 20.2 19.6 19.6 21.0 20.7 19.9 19.5 22.3 27.4 30.8 32.3 31.4 32.9 33.8 36.1 39.2 42.9 45.5 44.4 50.2 53.4 52.2 54.3 52.9 50.9 48.5
Transport Subsector 449.7 476.4 466.8 467.7 477.5 496.8 515.0 500.0 488.5 456.5 412.2 387.3 386.2 365.7 367.1 350.1 321.3 318.1 307.1 278.7 281.5 281.5 281.0 272.7 268.1 242.0 229.3
Road 443.1 469.9 460.3 460.6 471.3 490.5 508.1 494.3 482.2 450.2 406.0 380.6 378.4 358.4 358.8 341.9 312.9 308.9 297.3 269.4 271.8 271.9 271.3 263.0 257.9 233.5 222.0
Transportation
Other Transport 6.6 6.5 6.5 7.1 6.2 6.3 6.9 5.7 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.7 7.8 7.3 8.3 8.2 8.4 9.2 9.8 9.3 9.7 9.6 9.7 9.7 10.2 8.5 7.3
Residential Subsector 216.5 215.1 214.1 188.3 182.8 164.9 160.9 162.8 166.2 171.4 175.9 183.3 204.3 212.9 215.9 220.3 221.0 209.7 207.4 204.3 196.1 176.1 175.1 154.9 166.0 171.6 163.7
Other Sectors 40.9 40.5 38.5 39.0 39.6 40.9 41.2 41.6 40.3 40.4 38.8 40.2 41.8 44.3 45.9 46.3 47.3 49.9 54.2 51.8 54.2 52.9 53.3 56.1 57.6 59.6 53.4
Industrial Processes 345.0 340.9 347.7 369.4 370.7 426.1 437.0 456.8 463.0 506.6 532.1 501.1 541.4 589.9 628.7 615.8 745.1 694.6 723.5 717.4 736.8 734.8 734.0 732.3 732.1 732.1 729.4

FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

Chemical Industry 26.6 24.8 24.7 27.8 30.6 31.4 31.4 33.7 35.0 37.5 43.0 40.7 42.3 45.3 49.1 49.1 53.9 56.3 56.6 59.5 61.2 59.4 59.4 59.4 59.4 59.4 59.4
Metals Production 24.3 22.5 21.2 22.9 23.3 21.9 20.3 20.4 19.0 20.5 22.6 20.8 22.1 25.2 29.0 28.3 27.4 28.8 28.4 18.4 23.0 23.7 23.0 21.3 21.1 21.1 18.4
Pulp and Paper 13.3 14.9 16.7 17.5 19.0 19.2 20.2 20.8 22.0 23.9 24.6 24.5 26.6 30.4 32.3 34.8 37.7 40.5 43.0 45.5 48.5 47.6 47.5 47.5 47.5 47.5 47.5
Food Production 110.5 115.1 128.2 137.5 140.9 179.7 188.2 202.0 204.0 238.8 252.8 223.1 255.5 291.3 317.4 338.8 331.0 374.8 386.6 386.8 407.2 407.2 407.2 407.2 407.2 407.2 407.2
Beverage Production 170.3 163.6 156.9 163.7 156.9 173.9 176.9 179.9 183.0 185.9 189.1 192.0 194.9 197.7 200.9 164.8 295.1 194.2 208.9 207.2 196.9 196.9 196.9 196.9 196.9 196.9 196.9
Solvent Use 50,049.7 44,308.2 56,612.1 49,560.5 55,789.8 59,392.2 61,304.6 63,694.9 84,787.4 67,289.2 78,597.4 66,374.6 80,756.5 60,208.1 75,050.1 80,582.2 108,803.9 100,287.5 121,651.7 112,728.4 152,514.6 129,148.0 129,247.4 134,081.1 155,882.6 98,236.7 105,063.0
Memory only items:
International Bunkers 2.9 4.4 4.7 5.9 6.8 7.3 7.9 8.3 9.1 14.4 14.9 17.1 19.2 16.9 16.9 16.9 17.9 19.3 24.2 17.1 21.4 24.0 21.3 18.5 19.3 22.8 19.4
International Aviation 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
International Water- 2.7 4.2 4.5 5.7 6.6 7.1 7.6 8.0 8.8 14.1 14.7 16.8 19.0 16.7 16.7 16.7 17.7 19.1 24.0 16.9 21.2 23.8 21.1 18.3 19.1 22.6 19.2
borne Navigation
 HCF-23 | HCF-32 | HCF-125 | HCF-134a | HCF-143a | HCF-152a | CF4 | C2F6 | SF6

HCF-23 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
HCFC-22 Production 0.1202 0.1375 0.1636 0.1723 0.1566 0.1530 0.0890 0.0953 0.0130 0.0972 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HCF-32 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Use of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.0718 0.0420 0.0872 0.1059 0.1138 0.1286 0.1434 0.1582 0.1730 0.1878
HCF-125 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Use of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 - - - - - - - - - - 0.0071 0.0392 0.0508 0.0548 0.1207 0.1249 0.2517 0.2850 0.3021 0.3587 0.5012 0.4683 0.5146 0.5609 0.6072 0.6535 0.6998
HCF-134a 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Use of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 0.0004 0.0009 0.0042 0.0080 0.0685 0.0028 0.0476 0.1653 0.2823 0.3829 0.5023 0.6355 0.7745 0.9119 1.0608 1.2365 1.4584 1.7330 2.0314 2.3501 2.7362 2.6239 2.9372 3.2681 3.6166 3.9827 4.3664
HCF-143a 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Use of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 - - - - - - - - - - 0.0075 0.0271 0.0398 0.0500 0.1037 0.0929 0.2157 0.2520 0.3074 0.3209 0.4671 0.4331 0.4767 0.5203 0.5639 0.6075 0.6511
HCF-152a 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Use of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 - - - - - - - - - - 0.0001 0.0295 0.0081 0.0238 0.0543 0.1748 0.2800 - - - - - - - - - -
CF4 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Aluminum Production 0.3022 0.3365 0.3565 0.3348 0.3231 0.3060 0.2976 0.2027 0.2276 0.2013 0.1465 0.1147 0.1351 0.1362 0.1241 0.1239 0.1219 0.1174 0.1145 0.0823 0.0767 0.0631 0.0655 0.0569 0.0416 0.0333 0.0362
C2F6 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Aluminum Production 0.0263 0.0290 0.0311 0.0290 0.0279 0.0264 0.0261 0.0157 0.0172 0.0154 0.0117 0.0092 0.0117 0.0115 0.0100 0.0104 0.0104 0.0099 0.0096 0.0064 0.0059 0.0049 0.0050 0.0044 0.0032 0.0025 0.0026
SF6 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Magnesium Production 0.0058 0.0058 0.0070 0.0101 0.0099 0.0101 0.0097 0.0127 0.0101 0.0098 0.0103 0.0095 0.0122 0.0147 0.0170 0.0191 0.0216 0.0260 0.0260 0.0130 - - - - - - -
Use of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 0.0042 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0041 0.0041 0.0041 0.0042 0.0047 0.0049 0.0050 0.0051 0.0053 0.0056 0.0060 0.0061 0.0063 0.0064 0.0081 0.0075 0.0077 0.0080 0.0083 0.0086 0.0089 0.0092 0.0095
Total SF6 0.0100 0.0098 0.0110 0.0141 0.0140 0.0142 0.0138 0.0169 0.0148 0.0147 0.0153 0.0146 0.0175 0.0203 0.0230 0.0252 0.0279 0.0324 0.0341 0.0205 0.0077 0.0080 0.0083 0.0086 0.0089 0.0092 0.0095

Unit: Gg

APPENDIX I: HISTORICAL SERIES OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

99
APPENDIX II
METHODOLOGICAL
SUMMARY TABLE
APPLIED TO THE
NATIONAL INVENTORY
BOX 1: METHODOLOGICAL LEVELS BY GAS AND REFERENCES FROM THE ENERGY
SECTOR

Source of Data

Sector Method Other assumptions or parameters

Emission Factor (EF) and other
Activity Data for years estimated beyond the
parameters
Third Inventory

ENERGY

Fuel consumption obtained

by the National Energy
Default CO2 emission factors (EFs)
Balance – BEN (EPE,
were used, as per IPCC guidelines
2017); for road transport,
(2006), except in some cases where
information on the fleet was
specific national factors were applied
obtained from the National
such as for firewood, charcoal Data activity updated up to 2016. For
Association of Motor Vehicle
and piped gas; For non-CO2 gases, variable road transport EF, non-CO2
Manufacturers (ANFAVEA,
default EF were used (Tiers 1 and 2), gases were recalculated and updated
2018) and the Brazilian
applied to each fuel consumed as based on new vehicle sales data by
Sectoral Association of Motorcycle
per end use, references for those EFs ANFAVEA; for air transport, the same
Approach Manufacturers (ABRACICLO,
are: IPCC (1997; 2006) and EMEP/ implied EF were used for non-CO2
(Bottom-up): 2018); and information
EEA (2013); In order to determine gases, and consumption data were
Tiers 1 and 2 – on fuel consumption and
the energy end use allocation updated, maintaining the allocation
IPCC (2006) intensity of use obtained
coefficients, the Useful Energy between domestic and international
from CETESB (2017)
Balance (BEU) was used; Specific EFs data for Jet Kerosene, according to the
and MMA (2014); for air
were used for fuels consumed in proportion obtained based on the last
transportation, the data
road transport, these vary annually, 10 years of the historical series.
used were obtained from
and were calculated from data
the National Agency of
obtained from the Environmental
Fuel Combustion Petroleum, Natural Gas
Company of the State of São Paulo
and Biofuels (ANP) and the
(CETESB).
National Agency of Civil
Aviation (ANAC).

IPCC (2006) EFs were used. In the

case of wet natural gas, dry natural
gas factor was adopted, as the former
is not listed by the IPCC; For excluded
Data used to determine
carbon: the annualized values of the
the apparent consumption
BEU were used as a reducer; As raw
Reference of energy inputs were
material of the chemical industry, the
Approach (Top- obtained from the National
BEN values attributed to “Non-Energy Data activity updated up to 2016.
Down) – IPCC Energy Balance (BEN). In
Consumption” were considered;
(2006) the case of air transport, in
Non-Energy Use Products were fully
addition to BEN data, ANP
transferred to Industrial Processes,
and ANAC data were used.
where the carbon fraction stored in
the product and the emitted fraction
were calculated as per the IPCC
(2006).

For CO2 emission in E&P, the annual

oil production was considered,
For Oil and Gas activities the based on BEN, multiplied by the
following data were used: average of the past three months of
national oil, condensed the ratio production vs. emission.
Annual implied EF for oil and
oil and LNG production For CH4 and N2O, the proportion of
Oil and Natural gas EF (from 2003 to 2012) were
data (from 1990 and 2000) emissions related to the result of the
Gas: Tiers calculated for the following Sectors:
obtained from Petrobras; last available year was considered;
1, 2 and 3 Exploration, Production and Refining,
for the period from 2000 to For Refining, the annual oil refining
were used, based on emission data (by gas)
2012, besides these, data obtained from BEN was considered
depending on and production and processing
obtained by the National and multiplied by the trend value
the activities data (barrels/day) obtained from
Agency of Petroleum, for the years 2008-2012 of the ratio
or periods Petrobras. These factors were also
Natural Gas and Biofuels between production and emission
considered considered for the annual volume
(ANP) were used; The cargo of each gas; For Transport, the gross
(IPCC, 1997; of other companies in Brazil. An
processed at refineries was domestic supply of dry natural gas
Fugitive 2006) average EF was used for estimates
obtained from the ANP obtained from BEN was considered
Emissions from previous years (2003 to 2008).
and the cargo volume was and multiplied by the trend value from
obtained from the National 2003 to 2012 of the ratio production
Energy Balance (BEN). vs. CO2 emission. For CH4 and N2O,
the emission ratio related to the last
available year's result was considered.

For Coal Production activity,

data for run-of-mine
Data activity updated up to 2016.
(ROM) and processed
Coal Mining: For the CO2 emissions estimates,
coal production were
Tier 1 Method Default EF were used for coal originated from uncontrolled
obtained from the National
was used production (IPCC, 1997). combustion, the correlation between
Department of Mineral
(IPCC, 1997). emissions and gross coal production
Production (DNPM) and
(ROM) from 1990 to 2011 was used.
Annual Mining Reports
(RAL).

APPENDIX II: METHODOLOGICAL SUMMARY TABLE APPLIED TO THE NATIONAL INVENTORY

101
 BOX 2: METHODOLOGICAL LEVELS BY GAS AND REFERENCES FROM THE IPPU
SECTOR

Source of Data

Sector Method Other assumptions or parameters

Emission Factor (EF) and
Activity Data for years estimated beyond the
other parameters
Third Inventory

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES

Clinker and cement Implied EF ranging from 0.541

The trend of the past five years’
production from sector to 0.564 t CO2 / t clinker. In
Tier 3 – IPCC inventory implied EF (2006-2010)
Cement aggregated data (obtained some cases, when it was not
(2006) was used, with national clinker
from the National Cement possible to apply Tier 3, the EF
production data up to 2015.
Industry Union – SNIC). used was 0.536 t CO2/ t clinker.

Default EF (IPCC, 1997) applied

Lime production by type, considering the three typical
Tier 2 – IPCC based on data from the lime compositions (calcitic,
Lime Data activity updated up to 2016.
(1997) Brazilian Lime Producers magnesian and dolomitic)
Association (ABPC). and the water percentage in
hydrated lime.

For the steel sector:

data on limestone and
dolomite consumption; and
percentages of limestone
and dolomite for glass
Default EF (IPCC, 2006): Data activity updated up to 2016.
production, according to
limestone – 0.440 t CO2/t; For activity data on glass production,
Other uses of the Metallurgical Sector
Tier 1 – IPCC dolomite – 0.477 t CO2/t; the national production growth
limestone and Statistical Yearbook of
(2006) dolomite for the production since 2011 (IBGE-Sidra) was used; for
dolomite the Ministry of Mines
of magnesium – 5.13 t CO2/t magnesium production, CDM project
and Energy (MME, 2017).
primary Mg. documentation was used.
For dolomite used in
magnesium production,
emissions were based on
data from CDM project
reports.

Consumption data from the

Chemical Industry Yearbook
Other Uses of soda Tier 1 – IPCC Default EF (IPCC, 1997): 0.415 t
of the Brazilian Chemical Data activity updated up to 2016.
ash (1997) CO2/t Na2CO3
Industry Association
(Abiquim).

The consumption of fuels

identified as reducers
was used by crossing
information from the
Useful Energy Balance
(BEU) and the National
Tier 1 – IPCC Energy Balance (BEN) Default EF CO2 and non CO2
Steel industry Data activity updated up to 2016.
(2006) (EPE, 2017), in order to (IPCC, 2006).
avoid double counting
with the Energy Sector.
For the calculation
of CO2, the carbon
contained in the steel
was discounted.

102 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

 Source of Data

Sector Method Other assumptions or parameters

Emission Factor (EF) and
Activity Data for years estimated beyond the
other parameters
Third Inventory

Each plant used the best

possible approach (Tier) for
Data on Brazilian the calculation of emissions
aluminum production from their processes. The
Tier 1, Tier 2
by type of technology information is aggregated.
Aluminum and Tier 3 – Data activity updated up to 2016.
were obtained from Due to the lack of specific
IPCC (2006)
the Brazilian Aluminum information to each plant,
Association (Abal). from 2008 onwards the
implicit EFs of 2007 were
used.

Default EF IPCC (2006):

calcium carbide, methanol,
ethylene, vinyl chloride,
IPCC (2006): ethylene oxide, acrylonitrile,
Tier 1: calcium and carbon black. An
carbide, average EF was calculated
methanol, Consumption data for ammonia, according
ethylene obtained from the to the mass balance of Activity data updated up to
and vinyl Brazilian Chemical the manufacturers and 2015 and specific EF based on
chloride/ Tier 2: Industry Yearbook of without the discount of CDM projects. For nitric acid
Chemical products Ethylene oxide, the Brazilian Chemical the participation of urea production, only one of the
acrylonitrile Industry Association production (1.46 t CO2 / t factories was updated, the others
and carbon (Abiquim) and the produced); for nitric acid: had repeated values since 2012,
black / Tier National Energy Balance plants with CDM projects due to lack of CDM monitoring.
3: ammonia, (BEN). used the specific EF and
nitric acid, the others used the Default
adipic acid and EF IPCC (2006); adipic acid:
caprolactam plant specific EF with a CDM
project; caprolactam: plant
specific EF with activity up
to 2009.

Activity data for

refrigeration and air
conditioning, foams
and aerosols sub-
sectors were obtained
through consultation
IPCC (2006): with industry experts.
Tier 2a – The stock of equipment
Default EF IPCC (2006): For
HFCs production bottom-up for installed using SF6 was
assembly and operation Gases were estimated by linear
and consumption HFC-134a/ Tier assessed until 2008,
of equipment. For SF6 – extrapolation of their trend lines
and SF6 1b – potential and the extrapolation
Annual EF of 2% of installed for the historical series.
consumption emissions for of this capacity until
capacity.
other HFC gases 2010 considered the
/ Tier 2b for SF6. average growth in the
previous ten years. For
magnesium production,
SF6 was used up to 2009,
and its use was replaced
by another gas due to a
CDM project.

APPENDIX II: METHODOLOGICAL SUMMARY TABLE APPLIED TO THE NATIONAL INVENTORY 103
 BOX 3: METHODOLOGICAL LEVELS APPLIED BY GAS AND REFERENCES FROM THE
AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

Source of Data

Sector/ Other assumptions or

Method
Subsector Emission Factor (EF) and other parameters for years
Activity Data
parameters estimated beyond the Third
Inventory

AGRICULTURE

• Dairy and beef cattle: data on live

weight, average daily feed intake Data activity updated up to
and fat content, digestibility, and 2016. For donkeys and mules,
pregnancy rates were based on due to lack of data from
Enteric literature and experts and default 2013 to 2016, an average of
Fermentation values for Latin America (IPCC, 1997) 5 years reduction was taken
Population of dairy cattle (number of head), by region and year; (trend line, by the average
beef cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, horses, • Swine, buffalo, sheep, horses, variation from 2008 to 2012 –
mules, donkeys, swine and poultry from mules, donkeys: default emission last year of the series).
Municipal Livestock Production – IBGE by factors (IPCC, 1997).
Federation Unit from 1990 to 2016 (IBGE,
Tier 1 2018) and 2006 IBGE Agricultural Census • Swine and cattle: the fraction
and Tier (IBGE, 2006). of livestock category using each
2 – IPCC Beef cattle data were obtained by the manure management system was
(1997) difference between total cattle and dairy obtained taking into account the
and IPCC cows, according to the IBGE – Agricultural default values (IPCC,
​​ 1997) for Latin
(2000) Census, taking into consideration male, America; EPAGRI (EPAGRI, 1995);
female and young census data by state 2006 Agricultural Census (IBGE,
(Agricultural Census 2006, IBGE). 2006) and expert information. The
Manure Data activity updated up to
Note: The poultry population was maximum methane producing
Management 2016.
considered only for the Manure Management capacity and ash content fraction in
subsector. the manure were based on default
values (IPCC, 1997) and expert
information.
• Buffalo, sheep, horses, mules,
donkeys, and poultry: default
emission factors were used (IPCC,
1997).

Seasonally integrated emission factor

for continuous flooded irrigated crops
with incorporation of organic material
in the conventional and early tillage
systems were determined through
field experiments with methane flow
evaluation, following the method
proposed in IPCC (1997) and IPCC
(2000), with data from BAYER et al.
Tiers (2013), for the state of Rio Grande do
1 and Rice harvested area data by Federation Unit Sul. The IPCC (1997) default value was
Rice 2 – IPCC and year (stratified by water supply regime): used for the other producing regions Data activity updated up to
cultivations (1997) Embrapa Arroz e Feijão (2018) and DCI/IRGA in Brazil, associated with scaling factors 2016.
and IPCC (IRGA, 2018); of 1.5 (organic material input) and 1.0
(2000) or 0.8, for Continuously flooded and
Intermittently flooded with multiple
aeration regimes, respectively (IPCC,
1997).
Information on the water supply
regimes adopted for irrigated rice
cultivation in producing states was
obtained from consultations with
experts from national and state
institutions.

104 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

 Source of Data

Sector/ Other assumptions or

Method
Subsector Emission Factor (EF) and other parameters for years
Activity Data
parameters estimated beyond the Third
Inventory

EF for burnt dry biomass was based on Data activity updated up to

• Sugarcane (1990 - 2016): Planted area,
default values (IPCC, 1996 and IPCC, 2016. Due to the absence of
harvested area, amount produced and
2006). The effectively oxidized dry data and indications provided
average yield from the Systematic Survey
biomass fraction followed the standard by experts regarding
Tiers of Agricultural Production (LSPA) - IBGE
value suggested by the IPCC (2006). the gradual fractions of
Burning of 1 and (IBGE, 2018a).
Data of dry biomass, fresh biomass mechanization occurrence, it
Crop Residues 2 – IPCC • Herbaceous cotton (1990-1995): Planted
and rattan production/stem production was assumed that from 2012
(1997) area, harvested area, amount produced
ratio for the main sugarcane varieties onwards the burned area
and average yield from the Systematic
planted in Brazil were obtained fractions were kept equal
Survey of Agricultural Production (LSPA) -
through weighted average from to the last year in which the
IBGE (IBGE, 2018a).
different sources (national references). data were updated (2011).

Fraction of the amount of N fertilizer

Nitrogen fertilizer data were based on consumed as urea and other sources
values provided by the National Association (IPCC 1996 and Lara-Cabezas et al.
for Fertilizer Diffusion (ANDA), from 1990 1997). N percentages of volatilized
to 2016 (ANDA, 2018). Population of dairy fertilizer in the form of NH3 were
cattle, beef cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, obtained from national references.
Data activity updated up
horses, mules and donkeys were obtained Default emission factor applied to
to 2016. For organic soils,
from Municipal Livestock Production (PPM) the amounts of N added to soils, for
Tier 1 the same estimate for the
by Federation Unit from 1990 to 2016 (IBGE, direct N2O emission (IPCC, 1997).
and Tier period from 1990 to 2010
2018). Data on ethanol production were Annual amount of N excreted directly
2 – IPCC was considered, based on the
obtained from the Sugarcane Industry Union in pastures (IPCC, 1997). Nitrogen
Agricultural (1997), land use maps of 1994 and
(UNICA) from 1990 to 2016 (UNICA, 2018). excreted by the different categories
Soils IPCC 2002, assuming a linearity
Planted area of temporary and permanent of the national herd (IPCC, 1997 and
(2000) in the increment of the used
culture, from the IBGE Municipal Agricultural IPCC, 2000). Dry matter to dry waste
and IPCC area estimated for 1994 and
Production (PAM), from 1990 to 2016 (IBGE, ratio and N fractions in aerial waste
(2006) 2002, i.e., the same trend
2018b); For the survey of the soils, the (National references). N2O direct
observed in this range lasts
Brazilian soil map prepared by IBGE (IBGE, emission factor (IPCC, 2006). Direct N2O
until 2016.
2009). For the estimation of management, emission factors from fertilized treated
the 1994 and 2002 land use maps, which soils for different crops in different
are included in the Land Use Change and locations, and types of soils in Brazil
Forests report in the Second National (National references). N2O emission
Communication, were used. factor for management systems used
(IPCC, 2000).

APPENDIX II: METHODOLOGICAL SUMMARY TABLE APPLIED TO THE NATIONAL INVENTORY 105
 BOX 4: METHODOLOGICAL LEVELS BY GAS AND REFERENCES FROM THE LULUCF
SECTOR

Source of Data

Sector Method Other assumptions or

Emission Factor (EF) and other parameters for years
Activity Data
parameters estimated beyond the
Third Inventory

LAND USE, LAND-USE CHANGE AND FORESTRY

Mappings of all Brazilian biomes

for the years 1994, 2002, 2005
(Amazon only), and 2010, from
TM/Landsat-5 and LISS-3/
Resoucesat-1 satellite images (30
and 22,5m spatial resolution) at
a 1:125,000 scale and minimum
area of 6 ha. The classes Vegetation biomass and carbon:
considered were Managed Forest For each biome, a map was
(MF, i.e. forest vegetation within constructed that took into account
Conservation Units or Indigenous the phytophysiognomies of the
Lands), Unmanaged Forest map of past vegetation. Values were
(UMF), Secondary Forest (FSec), estimated for each pool: above
Selective Logging (CS, Amazon ground (AGB); below ground (BGB)
Biome only), Reforestation and dead organic matter (DOM,
(Ref, Planted Forest), Managed consisting of standing and fallen
Grassland (GM), Unmanaged dead wood and litter), based on field
Grassland (GNM), Secondary data, scientific literature, expansion
Grassland (GSec), Pasture (Ap), factors and, in the absence of
Agriculture (Ac), Settlement (S), information, ratios and/or IPCC
Extrapolation of gross
Water (A, Rivers and Lakes), default values (IPCC deadwood,
emissions for the
Artificial Reservoirs (Res), Other 2003 and IPCC BGB, 2006). The
following years (2011 to
IPCC Approach 3 (2006): (O, such as mining and dunes) carbon content of dry forest
2015) was carried out
All land use or cover and Not Observed (NO, cloud biomass was 47% for all pools (IPCC,
through annualization
categories and their and/or shadow covered areas). 2006). For Grassland, 47% was
indices calculated based
changes are considered The division of territory took considered for AGB and BGB, 50%
on the deforestation
spatially throughout into consideration the following for dead wood and 40% for litter
areas of each biome,
the territory. The information: biome boundaries (IPCC, 2006). Vegetation emission/
when available. Thus,
parameters and (IBGE, 2004), municipal removal factors: the increase
only for the Amazon and
Land-Use emission/removal boundaries (IBGE, 2010), map of in vegetation biomass/carbon
Atlantic Forest biomes
Change – CO2 factors for each carbon past natural vegetation (IBGE, was estimated from the scientific
was it possible to extend
Emissions and compartment of the 2004; MMA, 2002), soil carbon literature and, in some cases, IPCC
it this way. For the other
Removals different categories stock (BERNOUX et al., 2002), default values in relation to BGB
biomes, the 2010 value
were estimated from and protected areas (FUNAI, were used (IPCC, 2006).
was repeated until
studies carried out 2010; ICMBio, 2010). As a result,
the end of the series.
within the country (Tiers land use conversion and cover Other parameters: stock and
Soil emission values
2, 3) and, in the absence matrices, gross vegetation increment of pasture and agriculture
were also replicated.
of specific data, IPCC emissions, vegetation removals, were estimated from IPCC (2003)
Specifically, for removals,
default ratios were used soil emissions and removals, default values, taking into account
the 2010 value was fully
(Tier 1). and net emissions by biome the Brazilian climate zone. Classes
added by removals from
and period were obtained. For such as Settlement, Other Land and
managed forests and
the annualization of emissions Wetland had their stock associated
managed grasslands.
between the mapped years, with zero. Soil organic carbon stock:
annualization indices based adapted from the methodology
on the deforestation areas of developed by Bernoux et al. (2002),
each biome were calculated which estimates the amount of
to distribute gross emissions soil organic carbon as a function of
over the assessed period: INPE soil type and vegetation type, both
PRODES (2015) for the Amazon, classified by the authors into 6 and
Forest Remnant Atlas for the 15 large groups, respectively. Soil
Atlantic Forest (SOS Mata Alântica carbon emission factors: carbon
Foundation; INPE, 2015), FREL change factors due to land use
Cerrado for the Cerrado (MMA, change (fLU), management regime
2016), and PMDBBS for Caatinga, (fMG) and additions (fI) were
Pampa and Pantanal (IBAMA, selected from IPCC (2003).
2015). In order to estimate net
emissions per biome, annualized
gross vegetation emissions
were added to soil emissions
and removals and vegetation
removals were taken out (both
equally distributed per year).

106 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

 Source of Data

Sector Method Other assumptions or

Emission Factor (EF) and other parameters for years
Activity Data
parameters estimated beyond the
Third Inventory

Emissions due to
biomass burning
associated with
From the gross emissions from
deforestation were
deforestation, it was possible
calculated using the
to estimate the original dry Default EF (CH4, N2O, NOX and CO) The extrapolation of
IPCC guidelines (2003),
matter of vegetation before IPCC (2006) per ton of dry matter gross emissions from
Tier 1 and 2.
being converted to other uses. burned, taking into account the 2011 to 2015 was
Land-Use
From this original dry matter, differentiation between forest and explained in the previous
Change – Non Emissions due to
the values of firewood used for grassland categories. The oxidation item. The same method
CO2 Emissions biomass burning
coal (BEN, 2015), forestry and factors for each biome and category was used, with only wood
not associated with
vegetal extraction (IBGE, 2015) were obtained from literature extraction values being
deforestation have not
were extracted, obtaining the review. updated.
yet been incorporated
remaining dry matter in the field
into results since the
and available for burning.
methology for these
estimates is still being
developed.

Apparent limestone consumption

data, in tons, by state, were
Tiers 1 and 2 – IPCC obtained from the Brazilian Default EF (IPCC, 2006): 0.44 t CO2/ t Data activity updated up
Liming
(2003). Association of Agricultural of applied limestone (CaCO3). to 2016.
Limestone Producers (ABRACAL,
2016).

APPENDIX II: METHODOLOGICAL SUMMARY TABLE APPLIED TO THE NATIONAL INVENTORY 107
 BOX 5: METHODOLOGICAL LEVELS APPLIED BY GAS AND REFERENCES FROM THE
WASTE SECTOR

Source of Data

Sector/ Other assumptions or

Method
Subsector parameters for years
Activity Data Emission Factor (EF) and other parameters
estimated beyond the
Third Inventory

WASTE TREATMENT

The amount of municipal solid waste

(MSW) was calculated based on the
Urban Population data (IBGE, 1970;
1980; 1991; 2000; 2010; and 2016) and
per capita waste generation rate (MSW
Rate), which was calculated by linear
Population: Demographic interpolation between the years 1970
Census for the urban and 2008 (national MSW rate), and from
populations of 1970, 1980, 2008 to 2016 data from angular and
1991, 2000, and 2010, and linear coefficients of waste generation Data activity updated
interpolation between were used for the N, NE, CO, S, and SE up to 2016. The
years without the Census regions (CETESB, 1998, and ABRELPE, per capita waste
(IBGE, 1970; 1980; 1991; 2009; 2010; 2011; 2012; 2013; 2014; generation rate was
2000, and 2010). In 2016, 2015; 2016). In addition, cities with more calculated through a
the urban population was than 500,000 inhabitants had their data linear interpolation
Tiers 1 and estimated using data from estimated separately. Temperature, of angular coefficient
2 – IPCC IBGE - Resident Population evapotranspiration and mean annual data for each region
Solid Waste (1997) and Estimates in Brazil, with rainfall data were based on INMET data of Brazil, provided by
Disposal some IPCC the percentage of urban for the periods from 1970 to 1990, from the 2016 ABRELPE
parameters population from IBGE - 1991 to 2000 and from 2001 to 2010 Waste Panorama.
(2006). 2010 Population Census; (INMET, 2010). For the determination of Methane reductions up
Waste generation rate degradable organic carbon (DOCt) more to 2015 were updated
(CETESB, 1998, and ABRELPE, than 100 analyzes of MSW for different as recorded in the
2009; 2010; 2011; 2012; cities between 1970 and 2010 were monitoring reports
2013; 2014; 2015; 2016); carried out, determining the coefficients for each of the landfill
Climatological data (INMET, that describe the variation of the DOCt of projects included in the
2010); National guidelines for each state or region. Default values (IPCC CDM.
determining the gravimetric 2006) were used for the decomposing
composition of solid waste, DOC fraction (DOCf), waste disposal site
by Federative Unit and year. management for the methane correction
factor (MCF), and fraction of CH4
generated in the landfill gas. Recovered
methane data was based on landfill CDM
project monitoring reports for the years
1990-2016, published on the UNFCCC
website (UNFCCC, 2019).

Population: IBGE Estimates

Data activity
of Resident Population in
In order to obtain the wastewater fraction updated up to
Brazil and Federation Units
treated using each type of treatment 2016. The collected
from 1990 to 2016) - IBGE
system, a list of IBGE Demographic and uncollected
(IBGE, 2018c); Permanent
Census and PNSB data was made. For sewage fractions
private housing units by
uncollected wastewater, data from the were extrapolated
sanitation, occupation
IBGE Demographic Census (IBGE 1991; for 2016 from the
condition and location: IBGE
2000; 2008) were used - Permanent values provided by
Demographic Census (1991 -
private housing units by sanitation, the Third Inventory,
Table 441, 2000 - Table 1444
occupation condition and situation. For as there is no more
Tiers 1 and and 2010 - Table 1394) (IBGE,
the collected wastewater, data from IBGE current data for the
2 – IPCC 1991; 2010); Volume of
PNSB (IBGE, 1989, 2000 and 2008) were other years analyzed.
Domestic (1997) and sewage collected and treated
used. The methane correction factor The CH4 Conversion
Wastewater some IPCC in Brazil daily: National
(MCF) for each system type was made Factor (each system
parameters Survey of Basic Sanitation
with an interpolation of the 1989, 2000 type was made with
(2006). (PNSB) - IBGE (1989 - Table
and 2008 PNSB data and default data an interpolation of
5; 2000 - Table 1825; 2008 -
(IPCC, 2006). Household Wastewater the 1989, 2000 and
Table 55) (IBGE, 1989; 2000a;
Degradable Organic Component (Ddom) 2008 IBGE – PNSB
2008); Sewage treatment
and Maximum Methane Production data and IPCC default
by system type - National
Capacity (B0) data were based on default data (2006). The same
Survey of Basic Sanitation
values (IPCC, 2006). For the calculation efficiency of burners for
(PNSB) - IBGE (1989 - Table 4,
of N2O, default vales (IPCC, 2006) were anaerobic reactors and
2000 - Table 1815 and 2008
used for protein N fraction and N2O EF digesters of activated
- Table 1300). For protein
parameters. sludge systems was
consumed per capita: FAO
considered.
(2012).

108 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

 Source of Data

Sector/ Other assumptions or

Method
Subsector parameters for years
Activity Data Emission Factor (EF) and other parameters
estimated beyond the
Third Inventory

Industrial production values (Pi) were

found out from the observation of the
Data activity updated
most important sectors in 2005 and the
up to 2016. In order to
expert judgment for the period between
obtain beer production,
1990 and 2010. In order to obtain the
in the absence of
industrial degradable organic component
available data, an
Annual agricultural (Dind), as recommended by the IPCC
average of the last
production data: sugar (2000), a panel of experts was consulted
5 years was made.
Tiers 1 and (UNICA, 2018), raw milk to define the most appropriate Dind to
Pasteurized milk values
2 – IPCC (ABIA, 2018), beer (ABIA, be applied. Values of Maximum Methane
took into account the
Industrial (1997) and 2014), alcohol (UNICA, 2018), Production Capacity (B0) were based on
variation according
Wastewater some IPCC pulp (IBA, 2018), poultry, IPCC default data (2000). The Fraction
to total raw milk. The
parameters cattle and swine slaughtering of wastewater treated by certain each
treated anaerobic
(2006). (IBGE, 2018), pasteurized treatment/discharge pathway or system
fraction of each Sector
milk (ABLV, 2014), paper (IBA, (WSi, x) and methane correction factor
(MCF) was calculated
2018). (MCF) were defined after consultation
from an extrapolation
by an expert panel and default IPCC
of the weighted MCF
value (2000), due to the absence of an
interpolation data
official survey regarding the technology
presented in the Third
employed and each treatment/discharge
National Inventory.
pathway or system fraction in the
Brazilian industry.

The amount of waste incinerated from Data activity updated

1990 to 2010 was defined based on up to 2016. In order to
installed capacity data and assumptions determine the amount
of operating incinerator usage rate from of incinerated waste,
different sources such as SNIS, ABETRE the values presented
Tiers 1 and Data on the amount of waste
and ABRELPE (SNIS, 2006. ABRELPE, 2004; in the Third Inventory
2 – IPCC incinerated from SNIS (2006)
2007; 2008; 2009; 2010; and ABETRE, were extrapolated
Waste (1997) and and private companies
2006) for different types of waste. from installed capacity
Incineration some IPCC (2009); ABRELPE (2004,
Fraction of carbon content in waste data and operating
parameters 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010) and
(CCW), Fraction of fossil carbon in the incinerator usage
(2006). ABETRE (2006) were used.
waste (FCF), and Burn out efficiency of rate from different
combustion of incinerators for waste (EF) sources such as SNIS,
values were used from the IPCC 2006. ABETRE and ABRELPE,
The EF value for N2O used was the default for different types of
value (IPCC, 2006). waste.

APPENDIX II: METHODOLOGICAL SUMMARY TABLE APPLIED TO THE NATIONAL INVENTORY 109
REFERENCES
ABETRE - Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Tratamento de Resíduos (2006). Panorama atual da
incineração de resíduos industriais. Brasília, 2006.

ABIA - Associação Brasileira da Indústria da Alimentação (2014). Produção de cerveja no Brasil entre 1990 a
2016.

ABLV - Associação Brasileira da Indústria de Lácteos Longa Vida. 2018. < http://srv20.teste.website/~ablvorg/
site/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ABLV-Relatorio-Anual-2017...pdf>

ABRACAL. Associação Brasileira dos Produtores de Calcário Agrícola (2016). Estatísticas. Available in: http://
www.abracal.com.br/estatisticas. Accessed on: 13 April 2018.

ABRACICLO. Associação Brasileira dos Fabricantes de Motocicletas, Ciclomotores, Motonetas, Bicicletas e

Similares (2018). Available in: <http://www.abraciclo.com.br/dados-do-setor>.

ABRELPE - Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Limpeza Pública e Resíduos Especiais. Panorama dos
Resíduos Sólidos no Brasil 2009. São Paulo: ABRELPE, 2009. 210 p.

ABRELPE - Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Limpeza Pública e Resíduos Especiais. Panorama dos
Resíduos Sólidos no Brasil 2010. São Paulo: ABRELPE, 2010. 202 p. Available in: http://www.abrelpe.org.br/
Panorama/panorama2010.pdf

ABRELPE - Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Limpeza Pública e Resíduos Especiais. Panorama dos
Resíduos Sólidos no Brasil 2011. São Paulo: ABRELPE, 2011. 186 p. Available in: http://a3p.jbrj.gov.br/pdf/
ABRELPE%20Panorama%202001%20RSU-1.pdf

ABRELPE - Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Limpeza Pública e Resíduos Especiais. Panorama dos
Resíduos Sólidos no Brasil 2012. São Paulo: ABRELPE, 2012. 116 p. Available in: http://a3p.jbrj.gov.br/pdf/
ABRELPE%20%20Panorama2012.pdf

ABRELPE - Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Limpeza Pública e Resíduos Especiais. Panorama dos
Resíduos Sólidos no Brasil 2013. São Paulo: ABRELPE, 2013. 114 p. Available in: http://www.abrelpe.org.br/
Panorama/panorama2013.pdf

ABRELPE - Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Limpeza Pública e Resíduos Especiais. Panorama dos
Resíduos Sólidos no Brasil 2014. São Paulo: ABRELPE, 2014. 120 p. Available in: http://www.abrelpe.org.br/
Panorama/panorama2014.pdf

ABRELPE - Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Limpeza Pública e Resíduos Especiais. Panorama dos
Resíduos Sólidos no Brasil 2010. São Paulo: ABRELPE, 2010. 92 p. Available in: http://www.abrelpe.org.br/
Panorama/panorama2015.pdf

ABRELPE - Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Limpeza Pública e Resíduos Especiais. Panorama dos
Resíduos Sólidos no Brasil 2010. São Paulo: ABRELPE, 2010. 51 p. Available in: https://abrelpe.org.br/download-
panorama-2016/

ANDA. Associação Nacional para Difusão de Adubos (2015). Anuário Estatístico do Setor de Fertilizantes. São
Paulo.

ANFAVEA. Associação Nacional dos Fabricantes de Veículos Automotores (2018). Estatísticas. Available in:
http://www.anfavea.com.br/estatisticas.html

BAYER, C.; ZSCHORNACK, T.; SOUSA, R. O.; SILVA, L. S.; SCIVITTARO, W. B.; SILVA, P. R. F.; GIACOMINI, S.;
CARMONA, F. C. Strategies to mitigate methane emissions in lowland rice fields in South Brazil. Better Crops, v.
97, n. 1, p. 27-29, 2013.

BERNOUX, M.; CARVALHO, M.C.S.; VOLKOFF, B.; CERRI, C.C. Brazil’s soil carbon stocks. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.,
66:888-896, 2002.

BRASIL - MCTI. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação. Segundo Inventário Brasileiro de Emissões
Antrópicas de Gases de Efeito Estufa. 2010.

REFERENCES
110
CETESB - Companhia Ambiental do Estado de São Paulo (1998). Inventário Nacional de emissões de metano
pelo manejo de resíduos – Enabling Brazil to Fulfill its commitments to the United Nations Convention on
Climate Change, São Paulo, p 40, São Paulo, 1998.

CETESB - Companhia Ambiental do Estado de São Paulo (2017). Emissões veiculares no estado de São Paulo
2016. São Paulo.

EMBRAPA. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (1990-2015). Embrapa Arroz e Feijão - Dados
Conjunturais do Arroz, 1990-2015. Available in: <http://www.cnpaf.embrapa.br/socioeconomia/index.htm>.

EMEP/EEA. European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (2013). Emission Inventory Guidebook 2013,
Available in http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2013

EPAGRI - Empresa de Pesquisa Agropecuária e Extensão Rural de Santa Catarina. Aspectos práticos do manejo
de dejetos suínos. Florianópolis: EPAGRI/EMBRAPA-CNPSA, 106p. 1995.

EPE — Empresa de Pesquisa Energética (2017). Balanço Energético Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Available in:
https://ben.epe.gov.br/. Accessed on: 13 April 2018..

FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009). Faostat, Dietary energy protein and fat
consumption, 2009.

FUNAI. Fundação Nacional do Índio (2010). Dados geográficos referentes às Terras Indígenas do país. Available
in: http://www.funai.gov.br/index.php/servicos/geoprocessamento

Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica; INPE (2016) Atlas dos remanescentes florestais da Mata Atlântica: relatório
técnico final. Available in: https://www.sosma.org.br/projeto/atlas-da-mata-atlantica/. Accessed on: 13 April
2018.

IBA - INDÚSTRIA BRASILEIRA DE ÁRVORES. 2018. Histórico de desempenho da celulose. <https://iba.org/

historico-de-desempenho#celulose-1>

IBAMA. Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (2015) Projeto de
Monitoramento do Desmatamento dos Biomas Brasileiros por Satélite - PMDBBS. Available in: http://siscom.
ibama.gov.br/monitora_biomas/. Accessed on: 13 April 2018.

IBGE — Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. 1994. Pesquisa Nacional de Saneamento Básico - PNSB
1989. <https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/index.php/biblioteca-catalogo?view=detalhes&id=284395>

IBGE — Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. 2000a. Pesquisa Nacional de Saneamento Básico - PNSB
2000. <https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/pesquisa/pnsb/tabelas>

IBGE — Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. 2008. Pesquisa Nacional de Saneamento Básico - PNSB
2008. <https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/pesquisa/pnsb/tabelas>

IBGE — Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Censo Agropecuário. IBGE, 2006. Available in:
https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/economicas/agricultura-e-pecuaria/21814-2017-censo-agropecuario.
html?=&t=downloads.

IBGE — Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Estimativas populacionais - 1990-2016. Sistema IBGE de
Recuperação Automática (SIDRA), 2018c.

IBGE — Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Produção Agrícola Municipal 1990-2016. Sistema IBGE de
Recuperação Automática (SIDRA), 2018b. Available in: https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/pesquisa/pam/tabelas.

IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (1970, 1980, 1991, 2000 e 2010). Censo Demográfico. Rio
de Janeiro. Available in: https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/tabela/1288#resultado

IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2004) Mapa de biomas do Brasil: primeira aproximação.
1 mapa, color. Escala 1:5 000 000. Projeção policônica. Available in: http://mapas.ibge.gov.br/biomas2/viewer.
htm.

IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2010) Malha municipal digital do Brasil: situação em 2010.
Available in: <ftp://geoftp.ibge.gov.br/malhas_digitais/>.

REFERENCES 111
 IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2016) Produção da Extração Vegetal e da Silvicultura.
Available in: http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/. Accessed on: 13 April 2018.

IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. 2018. Produção da Pecuária Municipal. <https://
www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/economicas/agricultura-e-pecuaria/9107-producao-da-pecuaria-municipal.
html?edicao=17941&t=o-que-e>

IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Levantamento sistemático da produção agrícola (LSPA).
2018a. Available in: http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/indicadores/agropecuaria/lspa/

IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Mapa de solos do Brasil. 2009. Escala 1:5.000.000 http://
www.ibge.gov.br/home/geociencias/default_prod.shtm. 2009.

ICMBio. Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (2010). Dados geográficos referentes às
Unidades de Conservação do país. Available in: http://mapas.icmbio.gov.br/i3geo/datadownload.htm

INMET - Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia do Brasil (2010). Dados de temperatura, evapotranspiração, e

precipitação do ano de 1990 a 2010.

INPE — Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (2016) Projeto de Monitoramento da Floresta Amazônica
Brasileira por Satélite - PRODES. Available in: http://www.dpi.inpe.br/prodesdigital/prodes.php. Accessed on:
13 April 2018.

INPE — Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (2018). Monitoramento do Desmatamento no Cerrado

Brasileiro por Satélite – PRODES Cerrado. Available in: http://www.obt.inpe.br/cerrado/. Accessed on: 13 April
2018.

IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L.,
Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds). Published: IGES, Japan: 2006.

IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. JT Houghton, LG Meira Filho, B Lim,
K Treanton, I Mamaty, Y Bonduki, DJ Griggs and BA Callender (eds). IPCC/OECD/IEA. UK Meteorological Office,
Bracknell, 1997.

IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty
Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Programme, 2000.

IRGA — INSTITUTO RIO GRANDENSE DO ARROZ. IRGA (2018). Setor de Política Setorial. Porto Alegre, 2018.

LARA-CABEZAS, W.A.R.; KORNDORFER, G.H. & MOTTA, S.A (1997). Volatilização de N-NH3 na cultura de milho: I.
efeito da irrigação e substituição parcial da ureia por sulfato de amônio. Rev. Bras. Ci. Solo, 21:481-487, 1997a.

MMA — Ministério do Meio Ambiente (2002). Projeto de Conservação e Utilização Sustentável da Diversidade
Biológica Brasileira - PROBIO I. Available in: http://mapas.mma.gov.br/mapas/aplic/probio/datadownload.htm.

MMA — Ministério do Meio Ambiente (2014). Inventário Nacional de Emissões Atmosféricas por Veículos
Automotores Rodoviários 2013 Ano base 2012 – Relatório Final, Brasília.

MMA — Ministério do Meio Ambiente (2016). Nível de Referência para Emissões do Cerrado – FREL Cerrado.
Available in: http://redd.mma.gov.br/images/central-de-midia/pdf/submissoes/frelcerrado_20161220.pdf

MME — Ministério de Minas e Energia. Anuário Estatístico Do Setor Metalúrgico 2017. Secretaria de Geologia,
Mineração e Transformação Mineral, Departamento de Transformação e Tecnologia Mineral, 2018.

SNIS - Sistema Nacional de Informações sobre Saneamento (2006). Secretaria Nacional de Saneamento
Ambiental. Aplicativo da série histórica do SNIS. Série Histórica 2006. Brasília: MCIDADES. SNSA, 2006.

UNFCCC - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2019. Clean Development Mechanism.

UNICA - União da Indústria da Cana-de-açúcar. Histórico de produção e moagem por safra. 2018. Available in:
<http://www.unicadata.com.br/historico-de-producao-e-moagem.php?idMn=32&tipoHistorico=4>

112 FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL

 FOURTH BIENNIAL
UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL
TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

FOURTH BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT OF BRAZIL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
CONHEÇA CONHEÇA
NOSSAS REDES mctic
NOSSAS REDES mctic
@mctic @mctic
@mctic.gov.br
@mctic.gov.br
CONHEÇA NOSSAS REDES mctic @mctic @mctic.gov.br

CONHEÇA
CONHEÇA
NOSSAS
NOSSAS
REDES
REDES
ItamaratyGovBr
WE ItamaratyGovBr
ARE ALSOCONHEÇA
mctic
mctic AT
@mctic @mctic
@ItamaratyGovBr
NOSSAS
@mctic REDES /mctic
/MREBRASIL
@ItamaratyGovBr
@mctic.gov.br
@mctic.gov.br mctic
mctic /MREBRASIL
CONHEÇA NOSSAS REDES
@mctic
ItamaratyGovBr
@mctic @ItamaratyGovBr
@mctic.gov.br
mctic @mctic
/MREBRASIL
@mctic.gov.br

ItamaratyGovBr @ItamaratyGovBr /MREBRASIL

CONHEÇA CONHEÇA
NOSSAS REDES
NOSSAS REDES ItamaratyGovBr
ItamaratyGovBr @ItamaratyGovBr
@ItamaratyGovBr
CONHEÇA NOSSAS CONHEÇA /MREBRASIL
REDES /MREBRASIL
@ItamaratyGovBr /MREBRASIL
NOSSAS REDES ItamaratyGovBr
ItamaratyGovBr
mctic @mctic @itamaratygovbr
@ItamaratyGovBr
@mctic.gov.br /MREBRASIL

CONHEÇA NOSSAS REDES ItamaratyGovBr @ItamaratyGovBr /MREBRASIL

CONHEÇA
CONHEÇA
NOSSAS
NOSSAS
REDES
REDES CONHEÇA NOSSAS REDES

CONHEÇA NOSSAS REDES

mctic mctic
@mctic @mctic
@mctic.gov.br
@mctic.gov.br mctic @mctic @mctic.gov.br

mctic @mctic @mctic.gov.br

mctic
mctic @mctic
@mctic @mctic.gov.br
@mctic.gov.br mctic @mctic @mctic.gov.br

mctic @mctic @mctic.gov.br

MINISTRY OF
MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY
Empowered lives.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INNOVATIONS
Resilient nations.

MINISTÉRIO DA
MINISTÉRIO DAS CIÊNCIA, TECNOLOGIA,
RELAÇÕES EXTERIORES INOVAÇÕES E COMUNICAÇÕES